Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE

Subsidies

Sir L. Ropner: asked the Minister of Agriculture to what extent, up to the latest convenient date, subsidies to the agricultural industry are running in excess of, or less than, the amount estimated.

The Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries (Mr. Heathcoat Amory): I cannot yet say what, if any, Supplementary Estimate may be required.

Mr. T. Williams: In the meantime, will the Minister look at the profits of millers and bacon factories to see how they have gained as a result of these subsidies over the past 12 months?

Mr. Amory: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman can tell me how I can see the profits of these traders, or whether he has any advice to give me on that point.

Farm Survey, Mid-Wales

Mr. Watkins: asked the Minister of Agriculture what progress has been made by the Welsh Agricultural Land Sub-Commission with the farm survey in Mid-Wales; and when a report may be expected.

Mr. Amory: I understand that the Welsh Agricultural Land Sub-Commission is making progress with its investigations and hopes to submit a report to me within about 12 months.

Mr. Watkins: Will the Minister ask the Sub-Commission to publish a report far sooner than that, in view of the assurance given by the Minister for Welsh Affairs in the last Welsh debate on rural depopulation? Secondly, will the recom-

mendations be in the form of a White Paper?

Mr. Amory: In reply to the first part of the question, the sooner the better from my point of view. But a detailed investigation is being carried out over an area of 300,000 acres, and I am sure that the Sub-Commission will not lose any time in completing its business. In reply to the second part of the question, I must wait and see what the recommendations are.

Protection of Animals (Anaesthetics)

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: asked the Minister of Agriculture what steps have been taken to bring to the notice of farmers the provisions of the Protection of Animals (Anaesthetics) Act, 1954; and whether he will consider the desirability of issuing some simple explanatory memorandum with regard to the provisions of this Act.

Mr. Amory: My veterinary and livestock officers, who are in constant touch with the farmers, are aware of the provisions of the Act and are in a position to advise farmers. I am considering what further publicity might be given to its provisions and am grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend for his suggestion.

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many farmers, particularly in the more remote areas, are unaware that this new law limits the number of operations which their stockmen can carry out without an anaesthetic? Will he, therefore, intensify his publicity as soon as possible?

Mr. Amory: I will certainly look into that point. I am very anxious indeed that all farmers concerned should know exactly what is contained in the Act.

Pigs

Mr. Bullard: asked the Minister of Agriculture what progress has been made with the scheme for establishing pig-litter testing stations throughout the country.

Mr. Amory: The Government's proposed scheme for progeny testing stations, for boars in Great Britain is under discussion with representatives of pig producers. I hope to be able to make an announcement soon.

Mr. Bullard: Will my right hon. Friend pursue this matter as quickly as possible? There has been a rapid change in the kind of pigs demanded by the market, and this is a method by which improvement in our own stock can probably be brought about more thoroughly than by any other means.

Mr. Amory: I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend has said about the potential value of progeny testing, and I look forward very much to seeing these schemes in operation.

Mr. Collins: asked the Minister of Agriculture what assessment was made of curing capacity and what consultations took place between his Department, the farmers' unions and the pig breeders' societies, before farmers were asked substantially to increase the numbers of bacon pigs.

Mr. Amory: No special emphasis was laid on the production of bacon pigs when the Government in recent years encouraged farmers to expand their production of pigs. Indeed, at the 1953 Review the prices of pork pigs were substantially increased to encourage production of pork. The production policy and price guarantees have been discussed with the National Farmers' Unions at each Annual Review.

Mr. Collins: Is the Minister aware that his reply was not sufficient, and that it is beyond dispute that there is a completely insufficient bacon curing capacity? Does he propose to remedy a situation, which is his personal responsibility, either by having the number of pigs reduced or by increasing the curing capacity?

Mr. Amory: I cannot agree at all with what the hon. Gentleman says. I do not know on what evidence he is so sure that the present capacity of the factories is insufficient. I would remind him that the proportion of top-grade pigs so far offered to the bacon factories is, at best, only about half of their present capacity.

Sir H. Roper: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that, if the curing capacity is expanded, the release of imported bacon will be strictly controlled in order that the market may not be spoiled?

Mr. Amory: I am afraid that that is too hypothetical a question to answer.

Mr. Collins: Is the Minister aware that many farmers are still being permitted to send only half of their pigs to the bacon factories? That, surely, is evidence of insufficient capacity?

Mr. Amory: No, Sir. I think that the question of quality, as well as of quantity, comes into this matter.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Minister of Agriculture (1) whether it is still the policy of his Department to increase the production of pigs for bacon;
(2) what price revisions he will make to encourage the production of more pigs for pork.

Mr. Amory: Now that fatstock and meat have been decontrolled, it is the policy of the Government to allow the market, as reflecting consumer demand, to determine what proportion of the pigs produced are used for bacon, for pork and for manufacturing. The price guarantees will, of course, be considered at the next Annual Review.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the pig producers of this country have lost many scores of thousands of pounds? Will he be quite specific and say whether he wants twice as many grade A bacon pigs as there are at the moment, and does he believe that it will be possible to get any more porkers than there are at the moment unless he alters the price? Can we have specific answers to those questions?

Mr. Amory: No; the specific answers to those questions will be given by the consumer. I do not believe in detailed directions. What we have done has been to offer a guaranteed price——

Lieut-Colonel Lipton: And ruin the pig producers as well.

Mr. Amory: —and we must leave it to the market to decide what proportion of these pigs is required for other purposes.

Mr. Nabarro: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the record pig population of this country at the moment is a manifestation of the success of the policy of this Government during the last three years, notwithstanding one or two minor difficulties following decontrol? Will my


right hon. Friend not be deflected in any way from allowing the free market to dictate the demands of the consumer?

Mr. P. Wells: Is the Minister aware that pigs in Ashford Market in Kent a fortnight ago were sold for as little as £1 apiece?

Mr. Amory: It all depends on the size of the pig. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the market returns, I think he will find that the price of pigs for pork has been steadily improving every week.

Mr. T. Williams: Will not the Minister agree that over the past few months there has been a definite setback to pig production because of uncertainty all over the country?

Mr. Amory: I think that such difficulties as there have been on the re-opening of the market will grow less and less as we all have experience of the workings of the market.

Egg Marketing Scheme

Mr. Crouch: asked the Minister of Agriculture what progress has been made in the preparation of an egg marketing scheme.

Mr. Amory: Discussions with the National Farmers' Unions have now been resumed and are continuing.

Mr. Crouch: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the producers are eagerly awaiting the establishment of a marketing board for eggs because it will mean a more level price for them and a better quality egg for the consumer? For the first time it will enable producers to advertise the higher quality of the home-produced egg above the imported egg.

Mr. Amory: I am anxious to enable producers to bring forward a scheme if they wish to do so.

Mr. T. Williams: How long are the discussions likely to take before a scheme is produced?

Mr. Amory: I cannot give an answer in terms of days or weeks but I am anxious that no time should be lost. I think that definite progress is being made in overcoming the practical difficulties that we see in allowing a board of the kind envisaged to be established.

Wool

Mr. Crouch: asked the Minister of Agriculture the amount of home-produced wool in 1948 and 1954.

Mr. Amory: Production in 1953–54 is provisionally estimated at 45,600 tons in the United Kingdom compared with an estimated 33,200 tons in 1947–48.

Mr. Crouch: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this is a most satisfactory answer, and proves the progress that has been made in the sheep-rearing industry during the lifetime of the present Government?

Mr. Amory: I am quite sure that the whole House will be glad to see evidence of the steady improvement in agricultural output in the last few years.

Mr. T. Williams: Do not the figures indicate the real value of the guarantees given in 1947 by the Labour Government?

Meat

Mr. Crouch: asked the Minister of Agriculture the amount of home-produced beef, veal, mutton, pork and bacon for the years ended 30th September, 1948, and 30th September, 1954.

Mr. Amory: As the answer involves a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The figures for 1954 show in all cases very substantial increases over those for 1948.

Mr. Crouch: I shall look forward to seeing those figures, but is my right hon. Friend aware that it does prove the amount of progress which has been made in the last three years under the present Government?

Mr. Amory: I think that it is a great tribute to the energy with which, in recent years, all our farmers and farm-workers have got on with the job.

Mr. Bottomley: Will the Minister also agree that it has also been due to the policy that was pursued by my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams)? Further, will he assure the House that, with the abolition of bulk buying, the progress will continue?

Mr. Amory: The right hon. Gentleman knows that very much of what the


previous Government did in the agricultural field was done with our strong support.

Following are the figures:


ESTIMATED PRODUCTION OF HOME-FED MEAT (EXCLUDING OFFALS) IN UNITED KINGDOM


'000 tons


June to May years
Beef and veal
Mutton and lamb
Pork
Bacon


1947–48
478
112
14
90


1953–54 (provisional)
637
175
280
248

NOTES:

(1) The figures include estimated from pieces of land under 1 acre.

(2) The available statistics do not allow the Tables to be carried forward to 30th September, 1954, but it is known that sales of sheep and lambs and of pigs between June and September have been higher this year than last year.

(3) The figures given for pigmeat are subject to revision. Pork includes manufacturing pork.

(4) The total of pigmeat production includes, in addition, 22,000 tons in 1947–48 and 59,000 tons in 1953–54 used neither for pork nor bacon (i.e. shrinkage and inedible parts of the carcase)

Hill Farmers (Subsidies)

Sir I. Fraser: asked the Minister of Agriculture (1) if he will extend to hill farmers in England and Wales, such as those in the Lake District, the special subsidies granted to certain Scottish hill farmers, in view of the special difficulties that have been experienced this year;
(2) if he is aware that hill farmers have in many cases lost their hay owing to the exceptionally wet season; and if he will consult the Hill Farming Advisory Committee with a view to ascertaining whether it will be necessary to help hill farmers, and the best way to do it during the coming winter.

Mr. Amory: Hill farmers in England and Wales already receive under the Hill Farming and Livestock Rearing Acts, subsidies similar to those available in Scotland. My Department is keeping in close touch with the problems to which my hon. Friend refers and I will bear in mind his suggestion for consultation at the right time with the Hill Farming Advisory Committee. County Committees in upland districts have been reminded of their power to purchase fodder and supply it

to farmers on credit; and have authority, in relation to the subsidies referred to, to waive the normal condition that part of the subsidy must be spent on improvements.

Sir I. Fraser: Can my right hon. Friend assure me that the word "similar" means "the same"? Do hill farmers in England and Wales get the same amount of money?

Mr. Amory: In England and Wales they get at least as much as the Scots.

Land, Peacehaven (Compulsory Purchase)

Mr. Smithers: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that two plots of building land at Peacehaven, belonging to Mr. E. B. Holdaway, are the subject of a compulsory purchase order by his Department at a price of £2 10s. each; for what purpose the land is required; and whether he will now release it so that it may be sold by the owner.

Mr. Amory: Mr. Holdaway's plots are part of a substantial area of requisitioned land at Peacehaven which is the subject of compulsory purchase proceedings in order to ensure its full and efficient use for agriculture. As I have said in reply to recent Questions, I hope shortly to make a statement about the future of the land in this area.

Mr. Smithers: I thank my right hon. Friend for his promise of a statement. Is he aware that Mr. Holdaway's father purchased this land in 1916, on a prospectus which I hold in my hand, which says that a freehold in Peacehaven is a better investment than money in the bank? Does my right hon. Friend think that compulsory purchase at 50s. for each plot at the end of 40 years is a result which a citizen should have to contemplate when buying freehold building plots; and will he do his best to remedy this injustice?

Mr. Amory: I have always learned to regard prospectuses with a certain amount of caution, but I may say that, in addition to the price, which is the statutory limit I can pay in the event of compulsory purchase, I understand that Mr. Holdaway also has an admitted claim for £70 under Part VI of the Town and Country Planning Act.

Mr. T. Williams: Will the Minister get the name of the firm which produced that prospectus?

Mr. Smithers: If the right hon. Gentlemen would like it, I will give him the prospectus, which is very well drawn up.

Potato Harvest (Labour)

Mr. Godber: asked the Minister of Agriculture what special measures he is considering to assist in completing the potato harvest in view of the continued disastrous weather conditions, and the substantial acreage still waiting to be lifted.

Mr. Amory: Over most of the country, under arrangements made earlier by the Ministry of Labour and National Service in consultation with my own Department and the two sides of the industry, there has been enough supplementary labour to enable the potatoes to be lifted when the weather has permitted. In a few areas the weather has caused more serious delays, and we are watching the position there to ensure that all available local labour is fully and effectively used whenever it can get on to the land.

Mr. Godber: Will my right hon. Friend consider, if need be in consultation with the Services, the possibility of making available personnel of the Armed Forces where they can be of assistance?

Mr. Amory: We are watching the position and, of course, that can be done already, within limits, by local arrangements. Soldiers can volunteer in their own time, and can work at other times by local arrangements. The Minister of Labour and National Service has arranged for the harvest suspension for agricultural workers to be continued from 20th November until 1st January in the North and in Scotland, to enable them to help with the very late harvest.

Mr. G. Jeger: Is the Minister aware that many very small farmers are suffering serious loss owing to weather conditions, and to their inability to lift the potatoes before they are already rotten? Is he taking steps to prevent a potato shortage in the market in a few months' time?

Mr. Amory: I do, of course, realise the financial effects which the weather has had on all farmers.

Mr. Fell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, at this time of year, a certain amount of labour is available in some seaside towns—and certainly in my constituency? Will he seriously consider the possibility of using some of that labour?

Mr. Amory: I am quite sure that the employment exchanges of my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Labour and National Service are looking into all those kinds of possibilities, but solutions have to be found on a fairly local basis here.

Cereal Acreage

Mr. Godber: asked the Minister of Agriculture, in the light of the late season, what special consideration has been given to the difficulty of maintaining a reasonable cereal acreage for the 1955 harvest; and whether he will make a statement on his policy in this connection.

Mr. Amory: I am aware that the late harvest has considerably curtailed autumn sowings of cereals. But it is too early to reach conclusions as to the cereal acreage in 1955.

Mr. Godber: Does my right hon. Friend agree about the importance of maintaining a sufficiently large tillage acreage, and does he not think that there must be a substantial acreage of spring-sown corn? Will he look at the position regarding the availability of seed corn, particularly for spring wheat?

Mr. Amory: I agree with my hon. Friend, and I am quite sure that, in the interests of an efficient agriculture, it is important to maintain a high level of arable acreage. I will bear in mind what my hon. Friend said in the last part of his supplementary question.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Caenarvonshire

Mr. G. Roberts: asked the Minister of Labour the number of persons registered as unemployed in the county of Caernarvon; what percentage of the insured population of the county this represents; and how this percentage compares with that for the United Kingdom.

The Minister of Labour and National Service (Sir Walter Monckton): The number of unemployed persons on the registers of employment exchanges in


Caernarvonshire at 11th October, 1954, was 1,955, or 5·3 per cent. of the estimated total number of employees. The corresponding percentage for Great Britain as a whole was 1·2.

Mr. Roberts: Is not the Minister aware that these figures prove that the level of unemployment in Caernarvonshire is three times, or more, that in the United Kingdom generally? Is he not further aware that during the coming winter these figures will be still further worsened by the fact that two maintenance depots in Llanberis and Llandwrog run by the Royal Air Force are to be closed? Will he consult the President of the Board of Trade to see if some steps can be taken before the onset of the winter to improve the employment position in Caernarvonshire?

Sir W. Monckton: Throughout last year, and even before, I realised that the difference between Caernarvonshire and the country as a whole is of the order mentioned by the hon. Member, and I am in consultation with my colleagues, because this is a matter to which I have to give my special attention.

Mr. W. R. Williams: Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman any particular scheme in mind, because I happen to know the area from personal experience, and I can say that there is serious concern, especially in view of the development mentioned by my hon. Friend in connection with the Royal Air Force?

Sir W. Monckton: Specific schemes are not a matter for my Department. This is a problem for which I do not see an immediate cure, and I do not pretend to do so.

Workers (Earnings and Living Costs)

Mr. Fell: asked the Minister of Labour the average weekly earnings of full-time agricultural workers in Britain and of industrial workers in Britain, respectively, taken over a year, to the last convenient date.

Sir W. Monckton: The latest available information about the average weekly earnings of full-time agricultural workers and of industrial workers in Britain will be found in the September, 1954, issue of the Ministry of Labour Gazette.

Mr. Fell: asked the Minister of Labour the approximate average weekly inclusive cost of rent, food, rates, light and heat, to agricultural workers in Britain and to industrial workers in Britain, respectively, taken over a year, to the last convenient date.

Sir W. Monckton: I regret that the information desired is not available.

Mr. Fell: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, if it were possible, it would be very helpful to have these figures, because one cannot make a sensible estimate of the difference between industry and agriculture without some such figures to go on?

Sir W. Monckton: None of the material for comparison exists now, but it is quite possible that the 1953 household expenditure inquiry, the result of which is on its way, will produce something from which a comparison of that kind, if necessary, can be drawn.

Ship-repairing Industry (Strike)

Sir R. Acland: asked the Minister of Labour whether he has any further statement to make on the strike in the ship-repairing industry.

Sir W. Monckton: I understand that the exchanges between the parties, to which reference has been made in replies to earlier Questions, are still continuing, and, in the circumstances, any further comment by me at this stage would be inappropriate.

Sir R. Acland: Does the Minister appreciate that this strike is going on and on over a very small issue which is dividing the people concerned? If he cannot do anything at official level, is it really impossible for him or his advisers to take some action of a less spectacular kind to hasten a conclusion?

Sir W. Monckton: I am very anxious not to take any spectacular action, and while the parties to the dispute are having exchanges, I think I had better wait until either one or other of them calls on my services, which they know are available.

Mr. Daines: Is not the Minister aware that the men have receded quite a long way from their original position of


"Last in, first out," and that only the pigheadedness of the employers is holding things up?

Sir W. Monckton: I do not think I shall achieve much if I attribute blame to one side or the other.

Docks Strike, London

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Minister of Labour to what extent the recent London docks strike was caused by the Communist Party.

Sir W. Monckton: I would refer the hon. Member to paragraphs 10 to 13 of the Final Report of the Court of Inquiry which I set up to investigate the causes and circumstances of the dispute in the London docks. I have nothing to add to what is said there.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware that, in this 24-page report about the dock strike, there is only a very minor reference to the Communist Party, and that, in the summary of conclusions, there are 13 conclusions and no reference to the Communist Party at all? Does he not think there is too great a tendency in this country to avoid discussing the merits and getting at the real causes of industrial disputes by introducing the Communist Party every time? Does he not think that it is over-estimating the rôle of the Communist Party?

Sir W. Monckton: I do not think it was I who brought up the question of the Communist Party, but I would point out that I have drawn the attention of the hon. Gentleman, and through him the attention of other hon. Members, to the specific passages in which the members of the court deal with this aspect. I think it is fair to summarise them in this way —that they do not suggest that Communists caused the dispute, but that they do suggest that they exploited it and expanded it.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Will the Minister himself consider publishing the information which he has concerning the influence of Communism in this field, so that good trade unionists may know how they are being led by the nose?

Sir W. Monckton: A good deal of the information which I have I should prefer not to publish.

Industrial Health Advisory Committee

Mr. McCorquodale: asked the Minister of Labour to make a statement as to his plans for the development of industrial health services.

Sir W. Monckton: I am glad to inform the House that, following discussions with my Ministerial colleagues and consultations with industry through the National Joint Advisory Council and with medical and other organisations, I have now decided to take steps to stimulate the further development of industrial health services in workplaces covered by the Factories Acts. These services include the provision of good environmental conditions at the place of work, of protection against industrial disease, of adequate medical and nursing supervision, and first-aid.
To advise me on this development, I am appointing a standing Industrial Health Advisory Committee, and am inviting the appropriate industrial and other organisations to nominate members. I propose to circulate a list of these organisations in the OFFICIAL REPORT. Representatives of interested Government Departments will attend meetings of the committee.
It is my intention, with the assistance of this committee, to carry out a review to ascertain where industrial health services most need to be extended and to promote surveys and field investigations to determine the need for preventive measures or research. The general aim will be, in close co-ordination with the preventive and curative health services provided by statutory bodies, to develop industrial health services on a voluntary basis, but I shall also consider, in appropriate cases, and after full consultation with the parties concerned, making use of my statutory powers under the Factories Acts.
I welcome the work already done in industry, both voluntarily and under the Factories Acts, and I am sure that the further development of industrial health services fostered in this way can make a material contribution to our social and economic progress.

Mr. McCorquodale: While thanking my right hon. and learned Friend for his statement, which we all welcome, may


I ask him whether his plans have the support not only of both sides of industry but of the medical profession as well and whether he will use his best endeavours with the Leader of the House to see that we have an opportunity in due course properly to debate these matters?

Sir W. Monckton: From the consultations I have had I think I can claim that, while there are naturally differences of view as to how this problem ought to be tackled, all the organisations concerned, including the British Medical Association, regard this as a useful step forward and have promised to co-operate.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman assure the House that there is no intention to isolate the industrial health service from the National Health Service but rather to encourage the co-operation and coordination of these two services, in their very important work? Can he make a statement as to the possibility of a debate?

Sir W. Monckton: Nothing that has been done is more than a step forward. It does not prejudice whatever may be the final way of dealing with these matters on a national basis. I look for, and I know I shall get, the co-operation of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health. The matter of a debate is hardly one for me to decide, but I shall do nothing to prevent it.

Mr. Isaacs: In carrying forward this scheme, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman take care that there is adequate consultation with the joint industrial councils as well as with the established organisations on both sides of industry, and especially that contact is made with joint works committees of different kinds throughout the country, as this is the best means of getting co-operation?

Sir W. Monckton: Yes. I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. I will certainly bear those points in mind.

Following is the list:

British Employers' Confederation.
Trades Union Congress.
Nationalised industries.
British Medical Association.
Association of Industrial Medical Officers.
Association of Certifying Factory Surgeons.
Royal College of Nursing.
British Occupational Hygiene Society.
Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals of the Universities of the United Kingdom.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

U.S. Prosecution (Assistance)

Mr. Morley: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assistance was given by his Department to the United States authorities in the prosecution of Mr. Owen Lattimore; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Wyatt: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the nature of the assistance given in Britain to the United States authorities in the preparation of a legal action against Professor Owen Lattimore; and why this assistance was given.

Dr. King: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assistance his Department has given the United States Government in collecting evidence against Owen Lattimore.

Mr. Warbey: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will introduce legislation to give statutory authority to the arrangement whereby the police in this country give assistance to the police of other countries in making inquiries in criminal cases.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Major Gwilym Lloyd-George): I would refer the hon. Members to the answers which I gave to a series of Questions on the subject on 28th October. I would only add that I see no occasion for the introduction of legislation in the sense suggested by the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Warbey).

Mr. Morley: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that his answer to the previous Questions showed that on two separate occasions British police interrogated British publishers in order to secure evidence which could be used in the prosecution of Mr. Lattimore? Is he aware that the use of the British police to assist political persecution of this kind is very much disliked by the British public, and will he give instructions that this sort of thing is not to occur again?

Major Lloyd-George: The hon. Gentleman will see from my answer that instructions have been given by me which I am certain will make it impossible for this kind of thing to happen again.

Mr. Wyatt: The Minister said that this was an arrangement come to with regard to criminal cases. Surely the Metropolitan Police should have realised that it is not an ordinary part of police duty in a criminal case to ask questions of publishers to find out how many copies of a book have been published. Surely it is within the knowledge of any intelligent Metropolitan police officer that Dr. Lattimore was simply being used as a pawn in a political squabble in the United States of America. No action should have been taken in the first place.

Major Lloyd-George: I can only repeat what I said in answer to the previous Questions, that this was treated as a routine matter.

Mr. Wyatt: It should not have been.

Major Lloyd-George: That may be so, but it was treated as a routine matter. As a result, an instruction was issued which I think will make it impossible for such action to happen again.

Mr. H. Morrison: May we take it that in this case the police officers concerned did not consult the Home Office or the Home Secretary, and is it not the view of the Home Secretary that he should have been consulted? Is it now laid down clearly that in cases of this character the Commissioner, or the officer of the Metropolitan Police concerned, is required to submit the matter to the Home Office for instructions?

Major Lloyd-George: I said in my original answer that the Home Office were not consulted in this matter at all, but I think I can say that the effect of the instructions which have been issued will be to make it impossible for this kind of thing to occur again.

Dr. King: While welcoming the tone of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's answer, may I ask whether he is aware that his previous answers have shown that British police officers assisted in collecting evidence against a man whose only offence is that he had different views about China from other people in America? Does he not agree that that is contrary to the spirit and tradition of the Home Office?

Major Lloyd-George: That point does not arise. The matter was treated as an inquiry into a case of perjury, but should have been referred to a higher level. I can only repeat that instructions have now been given, the effect of which will be to avoid this happening in the future.

Mr. Warbey: Has the right hon. and gallant Gentleman seen the excellent leading article in the "Manchester Guardian" calling attention to the difficulty of determining in regard to perjury and other cases whether these are genuine criminal cases or examples of political persecution? Would it not be better to have these matters defined in a legal document making clear the types of case in which assistance can be given and the exact procedure to be followed?

Major Lloyd-George: I am not a lawyer, but I imagine that that would be an extremely difficult document to draw up. I think it is best to leave the matter as it is now. Any cases of this sort will be referred to the Minister.

Aliens (Medical Treatment)

Sir G. Lloyd: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what precautions are taken by the immigration officers of his Department to check the entry of obviously ailing persons who may be presumed to be coming here for free medical treatment, even though they offer another reason for doing so.

Major Lloyd-George: I assume that my hon. and gallant Friend is referring to the entry of foreigners, as immigration officers' powers to control entry do not apply to British subjects. Any obviously ailing foreigner who seeks leave to land in the United Kingdom is referred by the immigration officer to the medical inspector appointed under the Aliens Order, and the decision as to the grant or refusal of leave to land, or as to the terms of the conditions to be imposed, is taken by the immigration officer in the light of any certificate issued by the medical inspector, and of the results of his interrogation of the alien and of any companions travelling with him.

Sir G. Lloyd: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons from abroad seeking entry to this country for free medical treatment were refused permission by the immigration officers of his


Department in each of the years 1949 to 1953 inclusive.

Major Lloyd-George: No separate records are kept of refusals of leave to land for this reason, but the total number is certainly small, and it is not thought that many foreigners attempt to come here solely in order to obtain free medical treatment.

Oyster Catchers, Morecambe Bay (Investigation)

Sir I. Fraser: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking, on the application made under the Protection of Birds Act, for special powers to deal with an alleged excess of oyster catchers in Morecambe Bay.

Major Lloyd-George: I am considering this application in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, who has had an investigation made. When the results of this investigation are available I will consult the advisory committee to be established under the Act about the desirability of making an order authorising action against these birds in Morecambe Bay.

Sir I. Fraser: It grieves me very much to move against these beautiful creatures, but will my right hon. and gallant Friend nevertheless believe that there are half a million of them in Morecambe Bay, eating 10 cockles a day? [An HON. MEMBER: "Each?"] Yes, each. This is a grievous matter for the fishermen who catch cockles as well as for a great many people in Lancashire who eat them.

Major Lloyd-George: From examination of the investigation that has been made I am inclined to agree with my hon. Friend that extensive damage is done. As soon as the Act is in force on 1st December, I will consult the advisory committee.

Air Pollution Measurements (Civil Defence Corps)

Mr. Dodds: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made in securing the cooperation of local authorities for the purpose of providing volunteer members of the Civil Defence Corps to be trained and equipped to take special measurements of air pollution should smog conditions, similar to those experienced in 1952, occur again this winter.

Major Lloyd-George: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on behalf of the Lord President of the Council on 2nd November. I am glad to be able to inform the House that a more than adequate number of Civil Defence volunteers has come forward and will be ready to operate from the middle of the month. I should like to take this opportunity of thanking the local authorities and the volunteers concerned for their ready cooperation in this matter.

Mr. Dodds: Can the Minister state how many have come forward for this work?

Major Lloyd-George: I cannot give numbers but the relevant part of the answer is "more than adequate."

Children's Comics

Mr. Dodds: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give consideration to taking powers to place a ban on the printing and sale of horror comics, details of which have been sent to him by the hon. Member for Dartford, because of the possible ill-effect that can be caused to the morals of children and weak-minded adults.

Sir J. Crowder: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will recommend the setting up of a Royal Commission to consider the prohibition of the publication or sale of comics and other literature which is harmful to children.

Dr. Stross: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) whether he has now given further consideration to the publication in this country of illustrated literature of a sadistic nature from imported matrices; and whether he will make a statement;
(2) whether he has now given consideration to the desirability of appointing an advisory council on the problem of obscene or sadistic illustrated publications such as might be commonly seen by children; and whether he will make a statement.

Major Lloyd-George: I am not yet ready to make any further statement on this subject, but I can assure the hon. Members that the suggestions referred to in these Questions are receiving very careful consideration.

Mr. Dodds: Does the Home Secretary agree that public opinion has already gained a remarkable victory, in that three of the biggest British publishers have intimated that they are giving up printing these comics? But is he not aware that even if all the newsagents refused to handle horror comics, there are more than sufficient people who would be ready to carry on this profitable business, unless it is ruthlessly stamped out?

Major Lloyd-George: I share the apprehensions of the hon. Gentleman. There is no doubt that the most effective way of dealing with this matter in the long run is public opinion. It would be much more effective because, as the House will realise, there is a difficulty about legislating on matters of this kind. With regard to the question of people refusing to handle them, I have no more to go on than the Press reports. I was glad to see from one statement that it did not appear to be a very profitable business.

Sir J. Crowder: Has my right hon. and gallant Friend been able to get into touch with the chairman of the committee in America which is investigating the publication of these undesirable comics?

Major Lloyd-George: No, I have not been in touch with him.

Mr. H. Morrison: While I admit the difficulties, is it not the case that somehow the Home Office deals with extreme cases of obscene literature, and the courts pronounce upon them? Would it not be possible, either under existing law or under amended law, to be able to deal with these publications, which really are disgraceful? As some of them are imported, cannot the Board of Trade or somebody else stop their importation? Since we deal with obscene literature, on the whole I think rightly, ought we not also to deal with this beastly stuff somehow?

Major Lloyd-George: I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. It is something which should be dealt with. He will appreciate as much as anybody that there are difficulties. First, as I pointed out, there is the difficult question of differentiating between what is objectionable and what is not objectionable. There are four or five publications which are quite unobjectionable—one

produced by a parson. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I have looked into this carefully. Tomorrow I am meeting a deputation from the Archbishop of Canterbury, and as soon as I have considered all the representations, I hope that something will be able to be done.

Dr. Stross: Does the Home Secretary accept that there is something to be said for the principle of trying to avoid legislation, and that a better method would be to have an advisory council which would publish its opinions from time to time and have on it representatives of other bodies and the trade? Also, is it true that, as we have read, he has been supplying the Prime Minister with horror comics? Will he tell us what reaction he has had from the Prime Minister?

The Prime Minister (Sir Winston Churchill): I asked to see some specimens some weeks ago, but I have not yet had an opportunity to examine them.

Mr. Janner: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has yet received the deputation from the Archbishop of Canterbury in respect of the circulation of horror comics; and whether he is now in a position to state what steps he proposes to take to deal with this problem.

Major Lloyd-George: The deputation will be received tomorrow. I am not in a position to make any statement on the matter at present.

Mr. Janner: Before or after receiving the deputation, will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman consult the Minister of Education or the Board of Trade to see what can be done, because there is very grave concern about the matter?

Major Lloyd-George: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I share the concern. I shall be in consultation with all the appropriate people before any action is taken.

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware of the resolution passed by the Education Welfare Officers' National Association at their annual conference earlier this year urging that the publishing and distributive trades should set up their own council to ensure that publications of every description conform to standards of decency and good taste; and if he is


prepared to take action along these or similar lines to deal with the horror comics.

Major Lloyd-George: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I will be interested to hear of any proposal on these lines which the trade associations concerned might see fit to put forward.

Mr. Rankin: When the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is considering all aspects, will be consider this proposal? Will he consider it in the light of the fact that considerable quantities of comics are coming into the country via American troops? Will he get in touch with the American High Command to see what can be done to prevent comics being resold through American troops to retailers in this country?

Major Lloyd-George: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his suggestion. I will certainly do that.

Summer Time

Captain Pilkington: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether next year he will prolong summer time for an additional three or four weeks in the autumn as was the practice a few years ago.

Major Lloyd-George: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend the reply which I gave on 21st October to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. E. Wakefield).

Captain Pilkington: Will my right hon. and gallant Friend consider the greatest good of the greatest number in this case, and in view of the curtailment of sunshine, fresh air and exercise for millions of people, will he change his mind?

Mr. T. Williams: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman consult the National Farmers' Union before coming to a decision?

Major Lloyd-George: The right hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to know that I have done so. I am sure he will also not be surprised to know that there is no unanimity upon the point. Some people want the change and some do not. To make a permanent change would require legislation. There are many inconveniences, quite apart from these differences of opinion. The further north one

goes one finds that the idea is not so attractive as it is in the south, and one has to take all opinions into consideration. There is also the very great difficulty, if changes are made year after year, experienced by those who work out timetables for the whole country.

Polish Priest, Bradford (Disappearance)

Captain Kerby: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his Department has yet succeeded in tracing the present whereabouts of Father H. Borynski, the Polish priest who vanished from his home at Bradford on the evening of 13th July, 1953; whether inquiries into his disappearance are still proceeding; and if he will make a statement.

Major Lloyd-George: I am informed by the Chief Constable of Bradford that Father Borynski has not yet been traced but I am assured that nothing has been discovered during the extensive inquiries which have been made since his disappearance to suggest that he was the victim of foul play. Any further information which may be forthcoming will, of course, be followed up by the police.

Grounded Polish Trawler, Norfolk

Mr. Fell: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a statement on the security measures taken in relation to the Polish trawler "Czajk," which grounded on the Norfolk coast on Saturday, 6th November.

Major Lloyd-George: It would not be in the public interest to describe security arrangements. I have received full reports on this incident and am satisfied that all action appropriate in the circumstances was taken.

Mr. Fell: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that some people in Norfolk are a little concerned about this matter because the trawler came ashore in the early hours of the morning when there was no gale and visibility was a mile, and she came ashore at a very remote place? Her boat was supposed to have been washed away and that came ashore six miles away also at a very remote place. There is some feeling that our security measures might be strengthened.

Major Lloyd-George: If any suggestion is prevalent that something should have been done sooner, that is a matter for the Minister of Transport, who is responsible for the coastguards. My information is that the ship went ashore at about 1 a.m., and that the police and Customs had her under observation after seven o'clock. If there is any question of failure to report, my hon. Friend had better address a Question to the Minister of Transport.

Mr. Fell: What was the reason for the trawler coming ashore?

British Overseas Subjects (Immigration)

Mr. A. Evans: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what conclusion has been reached on the control of immigration from British overseas countries.

Major Lloyd-George: I regret that I am not yet able to add to previous answers on this subject.

Mr. Evans: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say when we are likely to receive the Government's conclusions?

Major Lloyd-George: I cannot give a date but I hope to make a pronouncement soon. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that this is an extremely complex and difficult subject.

Children (Public Care)

Brigadier Medlicott: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, in view of the serious increase in the numbers of children taken into public care as the result of the break-up of families, he will consider introducing legislation to enable local authorities to provide funds for family case work directed towards this growing social problem.

Major Lloyd-George: While local authorities already possess some powers to undertake social case work with families, the ways in which existing methods might be improved are being kept under review in consultation with the Departments concerned. I have no evidence to indicate that there is a serious increase in the numbers of children coming into public care because of break-up of families.

Brigadier Medlicott: While appreciating the valuable work done by those engaged in the adoption of children, may I ask whether it is not a fact that over many years there has been a large increase in the proportion of children who pass out of the care of their parents although both parents are still alive? Ought we not, therefore, to be careful to pay as much attention as we can to the maintenance of family and home life?

Major Lloyd-George: I entirely agree with the last part of my hon. and gallant Friend's supplementary question, but I can only say that my advice at the moment is that there is no evidence of any serious increase in the number of children coming under public care because of the break-up of families.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Does not the right hon. and gallant Gentleman realise that this is a serious matter which should be dealt with in a comprehensive way to ensure that innocent people are not penalised?

Oral Answers to Questions — POLICE

Interpol (U.K. Subscription)

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why the annual subscription from the United Kingdom to the international police organisation, known as Interpol, has doubled in the last two years.

Major Lloyd-George: The annual subscription of this country to the International Criminal Police Commission, which had remained unchanged since 1948, has, in common with that of other member States, been doubled for 1954. Previously, two of the member States had borne a disproportionate share of the expenses of the commission, which have increased as a result of the greater use made of the organisation and of improvements in its technical equipment.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Will my right hon. and gallant Friend give us a little more information about the International Police Commission? What is its statutory power, who has access to its dossiers and what sort of democratic control can be exercised over it?

Major Lloyd-George: I cannot go into that now. This is an arrangement which is of immense value to the police of all


member countries. In these days of quick transport I think the House will agree that it is of value to have an exchange of information between police forces for the prevention of crime.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Does not experience show that this great organisation is worth every penny that is paid for it, in view of the great service which it renders to the community?

Acquitted Defendants (Costs)

Mr. Bullard: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will write to all police authorities requesting them not to pursue a claim for costs for contingent actions in a case where the defendant has been acquitted of a criminal charge.

Brigadier Medlicott: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will circularise police authorities discouraging them from seeking to recover costs where criminal proceedings against an accused have failed.

Major Lloyd-George: I am aware of a recent case which has received some publicity, but I have no authority to intervene in a matter of this kind, which is entirely one for the decision of the police authority concerned, and it would not be appropriate for me to offer any general advice to police authorities on the subject.

Mr. Bullard: Will my right hon. and gallant Friend please reconsider this matter, because it seems to be a case where some general instruction is required? Is he aware that in the case of Mr. Fletcher, particulars of which I sent to him, after a very long time police costs were pressed to an extent which made Mr. Fletcher eventually bankrupt; and does it not seem wrong that after a man has had such an experience, and after a long time has been acquitted, he should have to undergo bankruptcy proceedings on top of all the rest?

Major Lloyd-George: While I am naturally prepared to look at anything my hon. Friend sends me, I am bound to tell him that the question of whether an order for costs is enforced is entirely a matter for the standing joint committee in Norfolk, and it would be inappropriate for me to offer any advice to the committee.

Mr. Ede: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman tell us what is the practice in the Metropolitan Police, for which he is the police authority?

Major Lloyd-George: Not without notice.

Brigadier Medlicott: Does not this disclose a very unsatisfactory position, because it amounts to a breach of the principle that a man is deemed to be innocent until he is proved guilty, and here is a man who, in the eyes of the law, was found innocent? Is it not unsatisfactory that he should have to pay any costs at all?

Major Lloyd-George: I am not arguing that at the moment. I am prepared to look at anything which my hon. and gallant Friend is prepared to send me. I can only say that I have no authority to intervene in a matter of this kind.

Betting Law (Enforcement)

Mr. Nally: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will conduct an inquiry into the circumstances under which all police authorities, whilst strictly enforcing the laws relating to betting and lotteries against religious, social and other organisations are failing to take cognisance of continued and open breaches of existing law by bookmakers and their employees.

Major Lloyd-George: No, Sir. This matter was considered by the Royal Commission on Betting, Lotteries and Gaming, who were satisfied that the police enforced the law relating to betting to the extent which their resources allow. I have no reason to think that this is not still the case.

Mr. Nally: Is the Minister really not aware that voluntary money-making ventures for worthy causes are being systematically closed by the same police authority which cannot, or will not, enforce the law against bookmakers, particularly in relation to street betting? Whilst appreciating the difficulties of the police, may I ask whether the Minister would not agree that it is time that the Government and the House made an honest attempt to improve a situation in which hyprocrisy is complete, corruption is not unknown, and the law is held in universal contempt?

Major Lloyd-George: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that this is an extremely difficult matter. I said in answering the Question that the Royal Commission itself felt that, within their resources, the police were doing what they could. One of the difficulties has been the considerable growth in the number and size of lotteries promoted for religious, social and athletic purposes.

Mr. Ede: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself considering bringing forward legislation to deal with the problem of these lotteries?

Oral Answers to Questions — WELSH AFFAIRS (DEPARTMENTAL STAFF)

Mr. G. Roberts: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the number of civil servants assisting him in his capacity as Minister for Welsh Affairs, their service grades and the main aspects of the work they do.

Major Lloyd-George: The officers who assist me in my duties as Minister for Welsh Affairs, which involve no executive responsibilities, are the Permanent Under-Secretary of State, an Assistant Under-Secretary of State, an Assistant-Secretary, a Principal and an Assistant-Principal, with the appropriate clerical and typing staff. Where need arises I have, of course, at my disposal the services of specialist members of my staff.

Mr. Roberts: How many, if any, of those civil servants devote themselves full-time to Welsh Affairs? Also, how many of those civil servants are in possession of a knowledge of the Welsh language?

Major Lloyd-George: I could not give an answer to the first part of that supplementary question without notice, but I will certainly let the hon. Gentleman have it. With regard to the numbers who speak Welsh, I could not say without notice, apart from myself.

Mr. Gower: Can my right hon. and gallant Friend say, first, whether in a recent case, in which his colleague the Minister of Housing and Local Government was unable to find a Welshman or Welsh-speaking civil servant to take an important post, he was consulted in connection with the appointment? Secondly, could my right hon. and gallant Friend say whether

any person on his staff, or any person on the staff of any other Department, could have taken such a post?

Major Lloyd-George: I could not say I think that was before I took over this office.

Mr. Callaghan: In view of the rather surprising statement that these gentlemen have no executive responsibilities, can the Minister tell us what it is they are there for?

Major Lloyd-George: They are there to advise the Minister for Welsh Affairs, and there has been no change in the position since this Ministry was first set up. They are in close consultation with the Welsh offices of other Departments, which is a tremendous help in looking after Welsh affairs.

Oral Answers to Questions — CROWN LANDS ADMINISTRATION (COMMITTEE)

Mr. Janner: asked the Prime Minister if he can yet state the names of the committee set up to examine the present arrangements for the administration of Crown Lands.

The Prime Minister: I am not yet in a position to make a statement on this subject. One name remains to be selected and when this has been settled, letters of invitation will have to be sent out and acceptances received from all of the five proposed members. We shall go on as quickly as possible.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is the Prime Minister aware that there has been a not unsubstantial addition to Crown Lands as a result of a recent High Court judgment which transfers a lot of Brady slums to the Crown, and that that makes it all the more important to get this administration in full working order as quickly as possible, so that the properties can now be properly administered by their new owner, the Crown?

Oral Answers to Questions — INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC AGENCY

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on the extent to which Her Majesty's Government in the United


Kingdom will co-operate in the working of President Eisenhower's proposed International Atomic Agency.

The Prime Minister: We intend to help all we can President Eisenhower's proposed International Atomic Agency irrespective of what other Governments may decide.

Mr. Henderson: Is it the intention of the Government to take the same line as the recently announced policy of the United States Government, which is to assist other countries in the practical application of atomic research to such matters as cancer research, as well as to industry and farming?

The Prime Minister: I think that that is a matter of some technical detail about which I might have reasonable notice.

Mr. Beswick: Do the Prime Minister's words mean that we are now in direct relation with the Soviet and American Governments on this matter?

The Prime Minister: I do not think it is for us to make any exceptional approach upon the matter. This has been done by the United States, and we have responded to it. Our position is well known. I do not think it is necessary for us to take any special measures.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Lord Privy Seal to state the business for next week?

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crook-shank): The business for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY, 15TH NOVEMBER—Debate on the Reports and Accounts of the British Overseas Airways Corporation and the British European Airways Corporation for the year ended 31st March, 1954, until 7 o'clock.

Motions for Addresses to continue in force for one year: Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act, 1945.

Various Defence Regulations and enactments having effect under the Emergency Laws (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1947.

Motions relating to: Patents Act, 1949. Registered Designs Act, 1949.

Report and Third Reading: Pests Bill [Lords.]

TUESDAY, 16TH NOVEMBER—Debate on the Opposition Motion of Censure relating to Old-Age Pensions.

WEDNESDAY, 17TH NOVEMBER, AND THURSDAY, 18TH NOVEMBER—Debate on Western Europe on a Government Motion inviting the House to approve the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

FRIDAY, 19TH NOVEMBER— Lords Amendments: Mines and Quarries Bill.

These Amendments are expected to be received from another place today.

Mr. Rankin: Did I hear the right hon. Gentleman say that the civil aviation debate would terminate at 7 o'clock on Monday? Surely it is not right that we should be asked to deal with two Reports, the Reports of B.O.A.C. and of B.E.A.C., in only three hours. Cannot the matter be reconsidered? I could occupy the three hours myself.

Mr. Crookshank: I am sure that the whole House would be gratified at such a distinguished performance, which it would undoubtedly be, but these arrangements have been made through the usual channels, with the usual agreement.

Mr. C. Davies: Is it right that seven matters are to be taken on Monday, and that after 7 o'clock six of them will remain, one being the very important matter of the continuation of the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act? Is that a matter which really can be disposed of in a few moments with five other matters which need important consideration?

Mr. Crookshank: The right hon. and learned Gentleman said "a few moments," but we do not usually have only a few moments after 7 o'clock. These are cognate matters which have always been discussed together, and normally after 10 o'clock, but by arrangement it has been decided to bring them forward to 7 o'clock for the convenience of hon. Members.

Mr. H. Morrison: Could the right hon. Gentleman oblige the House by saying whether, on Tuesday, in the discussion about old-age pensions, we may expect a fairly definitive statement from the Government about their intentions and when they propose to take action, so that the old people may know what their situation is?

Mr. Crookshank: The answer to that is quite obvious. The Opposition have put down a Motion of censure and they must wait and see what the reply to it is.

Mr. M. Lindsay: Is there any connection between the Motion of censure on old-age pensions and the by-election which is to take place next Thursday?

Mr. Crookshank: I think that everybody can draw his own deduction, including the electors.

Mr. McKay: May I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to a Motion on the Order Paper asking for facilities to discuss the relationship of the B.B.C. to this House, and the difficulty we have in getting Questions answered and in securing opportunities to discuss day-to-day matters concerning the B.B.C.? Is he also aware of the immense amount of public feeling on Tyneside about the television broadcast of the Queen's visit? In several places where the Queen stopped for 20 minutes there was not the slightest television coverage. Will the right hon. Gentleman consider affording an opportunity for discussion of the Motion?

Mr. Crookshank: I noticed the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Tyne-mouth (Miss Ward) to the Motion on the Order Paper, but there is no possibility of my finding time now to discuss that.

Miss Ward: On a point of order. As this Motion happens to be my Motion, Mr. Speaker, and I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. McKay) for supporting me, may I ask the Leader of the House, as this raises a constitutional issue, whether he will find time for a discussion upon it? May I further ask him whether he is aware that great indignation has been aroused on Tyneside by the lack of opportunity to raise this matter in the House? May I have an answer to my question?

Mr. Crookshank: The only reason I did not rise immediately was that my hon. Friend prefaced her question by saying, "On a point of order".

Miss Ward: Further to that point of order, then, Mr. Speaker——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady's question was in no sense a point of order.

Miss Ward: May I ask for your guidance, on a point of order, Mr. Speaker? Is it not usual, in this House, that when an hon. Member puts down a Motion, the name of the hon. Member which is at the head of that Motion takes precedence over other hon. Members who support it? May I ask very respectfully, Sir, why my name, which stands at the head of that Motion, was not called first?

Mr. Speaker: I did not know what the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. McKay) was going to ask. I had no idea.

Mr. Usborne: With reference to the business on Wednesday and Thursday on the Paris Agreements, and while appreciating that we have two days, as this is an extremely controversial matter, may I ask whether the Leader of the House would agree to consider suspending the rule on the first day?

Mr. Crookshank: I have had no official request for that, and I should have thought that two days were enough. In spite of what the hon. Gentleman says, taking the House as a whole, it is not really a controversial matter.

WIRELESS LICENCE CHARGES

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. David Gammans): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to make a statement about radio licences.
As a result of certain recent developments, doubt has arisen as to the legality of charges made for certain classes of licence under the Wireless Telegraphy Act of 1904, including broadcast receiving licences and mobile radio licences. The Government propose to remove any doubt there may be by introducing legislation to validate charges made on all licences under the 1904 Act. For future and current licences, the matter has been clarified in the Wireless Telegraphy AC of 1949.

Mr. Attlee: As a survivor from the very large body of former Postmasters-General who, I understand, may be affected by this judgment, I welcome this action, but I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman could be a little more explicit about what the offence is, because we have not really been enlightened on what the Post Office have been doing wrong.

Mr. Gammans: This covers the action taken by successive Postmasters-General— in good faith, to a greater or lesser degree —in the past 50 years. What has brought this problem especially to the Government's notice is a lawsuit against the Post Office by a firm of engineers operating mobile cranes and other vehicles. As this case is sub judice, I had better not make any reference to it.
The point at issue is whether the Post Office is legally entitled to make a charge for private land mobile radio licences. These licences were originally issued under the 1904 Act, long before this particular type of radio service was ever thought of. An examination of the position has been made following the bringing of the lawsuit, and has raised questions as to the legality of the charges made in the last 50 years under the 1904 Act for all types of licence, including the largest type of all, which is the ordinary sound and television broadcast receiving licence.

Mr. Alport: Is my hon. Friend correct in saying that this matter is still sub judice? Can he say how this affects the question of safeguarding the channels that are available to private radio operators of this sort?

Mr. Gammans: The case is sub judice, as I said just now. In reply to the second point raised by my hon. Friend, the Bill will not affect that in any way.

Mr. Hobson: Under the 1904 Act and the 1949 Act wireless telegraphy licences have always been regarded as telegraphic licences. Does the hon. Gentleman's reply mean that there is now to be a complete division between the two?

Mr. Gammans: No, it does not mean that at all.

Mr. Hobson: What does it mean, then?

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are to have legislation on this matter. We can discuss it then.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House). — [Mr. Crookshank.]

Orders of the Day — FOOD AND DRUGS AMENDMENT BILL [Lords]

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Bill be re-committed to a Committee of the whole House in respect of the Amendment to Clause 13, page 15, line 20, and the new Clause (Food Hygiene Advisory Council) standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Heathcoat Amory:"—[Dr. Hill:]

Question amended, by adding, at the end:
and in respect of the Amendments to Clause 9, page 11, lines 5, 11 and 14, of the new Clause (Registration of catering premises) and of the Amendment to Schedule 2, page 41, line 12, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Frederick Willey,"—[Mr. Willey,]
and:
and in respect of the Amendments to Clause 13, page 14, line 34, and Clause 13, page 15, line 10, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Mitchison,"—[Mr. Mitchison,]
and, as amended, agreed to.

Bill immediately considered in Committee.

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Clause 9.—(EXTENSION OF S. 14 OF PRINCIPAL ACT TO OTHER BUSINESSES.)

3.44 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Wiley: I beg to move, in page 11, line 5, after "premises," to insert "(other than catering premises)."
I think it would meet the convenience of the Committee if, together with this Amendment, we took the two following Amendments, in page 11, lines 11 and 14; the new Clause "Registration of catering premises" and the Amendment to the Second Schedule. If I may anticipate the further discussions upon the Bill at a later stage, I think we can also deal generally with the question of registration.
I do not want to be provocative in what I say now, because I hope that the Government will make a constructive response to the Amendment we now propose. In this question of registration we should first consider some of the general aspects. As was emphasised during the Committee stage, registration under Section 14 of the principal Act has worked well. During


our earlier discussions I called attention to the fact that the medical officer of health in my constituency had reported adversely upon restaurant kitchens, snack bars and workmen's canteens, but had praised the high standard of cleanliness maintained in all premises where ice cream is manufactured, stored and sold. Everyone knows that that position obtains in every local authority area, so that the general case for registration under Section 14 of the principal Act has been made out.
As we have also emphasised previously, the initial purpose of the Bill was to extend registration to catering trades. We feel very strongly that the Amendments which were carried at an earlier stage of our discussions were an unwarranted betrayal of this initial purpose. It was for that reason that we thought it proper to meet the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary, as we have done. We had a full discussion, and we are much obliged to the Minister for meeting us, but we are sorry that he has not seen his way to agree with the approach which was recommended by the Catering Trade Working Party.
We are putting forward this Amendment as a new approach. I know the difficulties of making a new approach at this late stage in the Session, but that is no fault of ours. I protested on previous occasions that the Opposition had been put into an impossible position in the consideration of a Bill which we hoped would be largely non-party. That fact has not been contested; it is agreed that we have been put into these difficulties. I mention the fact now only because it has meant that we have not been able to afford the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary the opportunity we Should have wished to afford them to examine our proposals. As I said, that is not our fault.
I also raised the question of constitutional propriety regarding this change of front. I want to explain briefly what I have in mind. It is well known, when I say that the Minister in charge of the Bill, Lord Woolton, has had a lifelong interest in that trade which the Government are seeking to exempt from the provisions of the Bill. I would again pay tribute to his distinction and eminence in that industry, but from a constitutional point of view I think the Minister is in a

peculiar difficulty if he takes action such as this.
I make no apology for saying again what I said on an earlier occasion, that it is a matter of some constitutional significance that the same Minister should be in charge of the campaign funds of the Tory Party. If those funds were disclosed we should of course have no complaint. I am not casting any reflection at the moment at all. I am merely concerned with constitutional propriety. The Minister in charge has had a particular interest in this industry and is also the organiser of the campaign funds of the Tory Party.
I should have thought that it would have been the bounden duty of such a Minister when proceeding with such a matter as this to have had negotiations in open forum. That is why I have insisted time after time that we should have the minutes of any meetings that have been held that have led to this change, to the introduction of these Amendments. On this issue we should have had the fullest consultation with all the parties affected. I put this challenge to the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister. I challenge them to produce evidence of any negotiations that they have had since the Second Reading of the Bill in the House of Commons.
When the Minister in charge is in this position it is his bounden duty, from the constitutional point of view, to conduct himself publicly and openly, and the negotiations, as they affect trade interests, should be open and known. Throughout our discussions I have appealed for information, and we have not had it.
I wish now to refer to the Report of the Catering Trade Working Party. I do not think it is necessary for me, though if I am challenged I will do so, to read out the names of the distinguished representatives of the catering trade and food hygiene who were members of that working party. I shall not be challenged when I say that they represented all the best elements who could have advised the Minister on this problem. They dealt with the point the Parliamentary Secretary has made a good deal of, for they dealt with the classification of catering establishments. In view of their report, that should not cause the Parliamentary Secretary any special difficulty.
These distinguished people sat for two years before they made their recommendations. I should like the Committee to ponder just what they had to consider. Their report is a unanimous report. They had to consider that there is a considerable number of establishments in which unhygienic practices are only too common. I call the attention of the Minister of Health to the fact that they remarked that all those were potential sources of infection and that their continuance constituted a definite health hazard.
That is the problem with which the members of the working party had to deal. Unanimously they came to their conclusions contained in paragraphs 35 and 36 of their report. I make no apology for again giving them to the Committee:
Representatives of associations of local authorities and of their officers who gave evidence before us stressed the necessity for the registration of catering establishments.
Does the Minister of Health feel happy about throwing overboard all that? Because that is what he is doing. They went on:
This view is not shared by representatives of the catering industry who, as a whole, are opposed to registration. Some members of the Working Party support the view of the industry but, after very careful consideration and subject to what is said in paragraph 36 and in Part B of Appendix II, they accept the conclusion that registration of the premises of catering establishments by the local authority is an essential administrative pre-requisite"—
of what?—
of any real effort to improve hygienic conditions. Differences arose as to the type of registration to recommend. Members experienced in matters of public health, technically and administratively, are of the opinion that an appropriate form of registration is that of section 14 of the Food and Drugs Act, 1938…under which registration is contingent upon a satisfactory support.
Does the Minister of Health accept that? They went on:
If the local authority feels precluded from registering the premises the applicant is given an opportunity to state his case and thereafter has a right to appeal to a court of summary jurisdiction and also to a higher court. The view of other members is that if registration is to be insisted upon it should be 'by right'. This implies the possibility of registration without preliminary inspection. Only if subsequent investigation by the local authority discloses unsatisfactory conditions can steps be taken to cancel the registration, whereas the procedure of section 14 imposes some restraint upon the use of the premises. In these cir-

cumstances, we confine ourselves to a recommendation that the premises of all catering establishments should be registered by the local authority. All premises being used for the purpose on 'the appointed day' should be deemed to be registered as soon as proper application is made to the local authority.
That is what the working party unanimously concluded. It made its first recommendation that
All catering establishments should be required to register with the appropriate local authority.
The majority of the working party, the whole of the professional people, the whole of the people from public administration, and some of those from the catering industry recommended registration without qualification. They did that because, to quote their Appendix II (Part A):
We consider that the public ought not to be exposed to the health risks which may be involved in the use of unsuitable premises for new catering establishments.
The minority also recommended registration. They said:
…we have accepted with some reluctance that registration should be advocated as part of the administrative machinery.…
There is no doubt about it: they accepted it. They said:
Whilst registration would impose on the caterer an additional burden, if it is indeed a measure which will further the earnest desire of the industry to improve hygiene, then we submit that registration in the form of registration 'as of right' gives all that local auhority administration can require.
Is the Parliamentary Secretary frustrating them in that? They have accepted registration provided that the Measure will improve food hygiene, provided again that registration is in the form of registration as of right. They went on to say that registration as of right meant notification to the local authority. They said that they understood registration would impose the standard code which the working party recommended should be legally enforceable, and they said that at quarter sessions level registration might be withdrawn by the local authority. In other words, I do not think it is a procedure that anyone would be very anxious to implement.
There has been no effort to put forward even the view of the minority, who would like a procedure such as the procedure that a local authority uses to stop highways. That is all. Even the minority say they subscribe to the general conclusion that there should be registration, but they


want a provision for withdrawal; they believe that registration should be of right, and that the local authority should proceed as it would in the case of the stopping of a highway, and have to go to quarter sessions if it wished to withdraw a licence.
4.0 p.m.
That was the position against which the Government introduced the Bill, giving regulation-making powers to provide for registration. Now, they have thrown it overboard. I put these specific questions to the Minister and to the Parliamentary Secretary. Who, since Second Reading, has made representations? Have there been representations from any local authority association asking for an abandonment of registration? The Parliamentary Secretary made a debating point about this providing a good deal of work for local authorities. Have they made any such representations to him? Is it not a fact that all local authorities are now pressing for registration, and will continue to press for it if the Government abandon the principle in the Bill?
Have any of the professional bodies made representations since Second Reading saying that they do not like registration throwing overboard all the professional experts of the working party? Have any of the public health authorities made representations asking the Government to take out from the Bill the registration of catering premises? Have any of the hygiene bodies made representations, saying, "Please take out registration from the Bill. It will not work"? And will the Parliamentary Secretary answer this further question: have any of the trade associations made representations since Second Reading? If so, which trade association?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Charles Hill): May I relieve the hon. Member's anxiety on the point of the trade and trade associations? No representations of any kind have come to us on this issue since Second Reading.

Mr. Willey: At least, we know now where we are. We will not dignify them by the name of "representations," because that is a technical term. Representations are matters which are minuted and on which civil servants attend. No representations have been made. Why,

then, have the Government changed their minds?

Dr. Hill: In due course I will deal with the reasons why the Government changed their minds. But I want to get this abundantly clear—and I am not taking advantage of the hon. Member's own word "representations": no representation, pressure, communication, in writing or otherwise, has come to us from the catering trades on this question since Second Reading.

Mr. M. Turner-Samuels: The Parliamentary Secretary says that in due course he will come to the point. Does he recall that during the Committee stage I put this matter to him specifically and asked for an answer but none was forthcoming?

Dr. Hill: You wait.

Mr. Willey: We know the position, then, that officially no one wants what the Government are doing. That is progress. From whence originated the suggestion which has expressed itself to the Amendments to the Bill which have been carried? We want to know its source. At any rate, we have now reached the comforting conclusion that no official body wants this arrangement and that no professional association, from public administration or from the trade, made representations or brought any pressure to bear upon the Government.
This confirms our worst suspicions. I felt that I was right when I raised this matter earlier, because otherwise we would have had an express refutation. But we have never had it, and we have not got it today. It is lost in obscurity.

Mr. James Hudson: And in the Tory Central Office.

Mr. Willey: It might have been lost upstairs, in the 1922 Committee, or in a corridor. We know that there was a Minister lurking who had particular interests in a certain industry, and he came to the conclusion which is adverse to all the examination of the Catering Trade Working Party and now, we know, not welcomed anywhere.
To deal with the Government's proposals, we can say quite definitely—I defy the Parliamentary Secretary to deny this —that these proposals are not welcomed


generally by those in the catering industry, who think it most unfair that they should be singled out to be subject to this police court procedure. They know—I am not speaking in political terms—that if there is what they consider to be an awkward authority, it will resort to police court proceedings. That will mean a lot of unwelcome publicity, and it will have the worst possible effect upon the good relations between the trade, the Government and local authorities that it is our purpose to obtain from the Bill. I can think of nothing worse. If the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary pursue this course, we will have the worst possible reaction upon the catering trade.
I mentioned one of the trades that was registered under Section 14 of the principal Act. How different the catering trade will be. We will have those unfortunate headlines, which will react upon the good relations that we are trying to build up between the Department, the local authorities and the catering industry. I appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to think again about this proposal that came from such obscure quarters.
What we have tried to do in our new Clause, to which the present Amendment is a paving Amendment, is to meet the anxieties of the catering trade. Unlike the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister, we on this side have taken pains to have discussion with members of the catering industry. We think that that is proper, and we have done it throughout the Bill. Throughout our discussions on the Bill, we on this side have been prepared to consult and discuss with all affected parties. To the extent that our inquiries have carried us, they have been limited again because of the way that the Bill has been pushed through Parliament at the end of the Session. But our inquiries have convinced us that the proposals of the Government are not acceptable. We are convinced that our proposals meet, as far as it is possible to meet, the apprehensions of the catering industry.
What do we propose? We propose that the main anxiety of the catering industry should be met and that the caterers should have registration as of right; we concede that. The caterer who starts up in business would get his regis-

tration. That might be objected to from some quarters, but we recognise that if we are to get the maximum improvement in the catering industry it is important to obtain the best co-operation and good will from that industry. So we are willing to write into the Bill—not to leave it to discretion—that in the case of the catering industry, it shall have, unambiguously, registration as of right.
How are we to administer registration? I do not grant the catering industry's apprehensions as being justified, but we concede that the industry genuinely has apprehensions about the relations between itself and the local authorities. I think that those apprehensions are groundless, but at the same time—it is a view I have always taken about food hygiene—it is important to avoid what the Parliamentary Secretary proposes to do: that is, taking people to court. It is important to gain their good will.
It is common ground in all the food trades, not only in the catering trades, that the food control committees did excellent work throughout the period of their existence. They had the most ticklish job to do—licensing—and they did it, by and large, without any difficulty. We have learnt from that experience, and we ask the Committee to agree with us that in this exceptional case we should follow the analogy of the food control committees and allow trader representation on the catering premises committee.
If they have their representatives and spokesmen there, I am sure, from my knowledge of English local government, that their apprehensions will be killed. So we suggest that they should have registration as a right, and that the committee which would administer this part of the Bill when it becomes an Act, so far as catering premises are concerned, should have upon it, written down in the Bill, trade representation.
We do not stop there. We say that we are prepared to give the Minister power to provide that the local authority shall delegate its powers to that committee. We want to allay the fears of the catering industry, and what more can we do to provide the good relations for which we are anxiously seeking—because we know that this is the only way in which we shall get better conditions—than to provide this in the Bill?
We go further. We say to the catering industry, "We give you proof of our good faith and tell you how shocked we are by the action of the Government. We have never expressed ourselves as keen in trying to get food hygiene through the police courts. We will provide this further safeguard, that there shall be no prosecution under this Bill, when it becomes an Act, of catering establishments unless the consent is given of the Catering Premises Committee on which you have particular representation."
What finer safeguard could there be for the catering trade than that? I am sure that the fears which the catering trade have about the proposals of the Government would be met in this way. We say, "You have now a committee of the local authority on which you have adequate representation. We concede that in some instances your fears of prosecution under the proposals of the Government are quite well-founded. It could happen. It would be unfortunate, and we will provide this safeguard against frivolous prosecutions.
We give further safeguards. We say that we know that one of the difficulties about this is the lack of definition. You are asked to improve your premises. We provide in a further subsection all the safeguards thereby given to ensure that proper notice is given, and statutorily given, to the catering establishments of alterations which have to be made. That again is a safeguard which they feel they should have. We are not prepared to quarrel with that. On the contrary, we accept that and write it into the Bill. We say that we will make it clear that even if these provisions are not met, because we may get a small caterer who has difficulty in meeting his obligations in time, this committee, notwithstanding that notice has been given, may postpone decision of the matter. I am sure, as are my right hon. and hon. Friends, that this is a satisfactory working compromise.
We are sure that this would obtain the co-operation of the trade. Moreover, we are sure that these safeguards provide an essential basic formula for the local authorities and the catering industries to work together. If the right hon. Gentleman or the Parliamentary Secretary do not accept these proposals we shall be even more suspicious of the obscure quarters from whence the Government's Amendments sprung. If the Minister

persists in throwing away this offer, I am quite sure that he will disappoint almost everyone in the catering industry. He will certainly disappoint every small caterer. He may allay the suspicions of some of the big people. I do not know whether they represent the obscure quarter because our inquiries have not been absolutely comprehensive, but we can say, subject to that exception, that our inquiries led us to the conclusion that these proposals are workable and would meet the apprehensions of the catering industry.
Quite frankly, we do not share in these apprehensions, but we feel it to be absolutely essential to do what we can to get the good will of the catering industry if we are to improve food hygiene in catering establishments. So I hope that the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary will accept this Amendment as a genuine attempt to seek a solution of this question of registration of catering establishments.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: In supporting the Amendment, may I say that I am shocked by the disclosure made by the Parliamentary Secretary that there has been no consultation on these matters. I should be the first person to agree with that principle were it a question of a private interest likely to make a private advantage under a Government Measure. That was the position as regards certain interests in television; but this is an entirely different matter.
We have, in this case, to begin with the report of the working party, which included at least three highly-important interests. One was the local authorities concerned, the second was the persons engaged in the catering establishments, and the third—and a very important one —was the persons employed in the catering industry. With none of these people has there been, on this point, apparently, any consultation.
The position appears to be that, notwithstanding the report, the Government introduced a Bill allowing for the registration of catering premises, carried that Bill to an advanced stage, and, at the last moment, when it had already passed through one of the Houses, and had its Second Reading in this House, introduced an Amendment to remove the most important part of the Bill.
There is no doubt that this was a working party on hygiene in catering establishments. It was not a working party on how to punish people who broke regulations. It was on the matter which is, I hope, the object of every Member of this Committee—to promote hygiene in catering establishments. It was for that reason that it came to the conclusion that registration was necessary.
I have been looking at the Parliamentary Secretary's previous remarks in Committee, and it appears to me that the point of principle which he thinks he has found is this: that when we are dealing with hygiene in catering establishments we should prosecute the man in a police court before we allow the local authority to deal with him. I take leave to think that that kind of thing is bad and wrong both in theory and in practice. After all, this point was considered by this working party, and on page 27 of their report they consider the question of the supervision of catering establishments by local authorities and point out that they are already the enforcing authority. They refer to registration and conclude by saying:
…we feel sure that any clarification or tightening of the law to which this Report may give rise will lead to greater co-operation between local authority officers and the managements of commercial and other catering undertakings.
I agree absolutely.
Is there likely to be better co-operation between the catering trade and the local authority when the only way in which the local authority can get hygiene in the establishment is to institute a prosecution, or is there likely to be greater cooperation when it is the responsibility of the local authority to keep a register and to admit or to refuse to continue registration in that register?
It is said that a local authority ought not to have these powers and that they will be burdensome. Let us take the burdensome point first. Will it really be easier from the local authority point of view, if, in fact, it enforces the regulations and requirements, to have to do so every time by taking proceedings, by having the local sanitary inspector kept in the court as a witness, possibly with some delay, and by having proceedings which may last for some considerable

time; or will it be easier for the local authority to do it in the way in which sanitary requirements are usually enforced at present, by having the sanitary inspector go round to the catering establishments concerned and deal with the requirements purely on administrative lines in the first place?
It is plain that if the local authority comes to a decision, then, under Clause 14, there is the possibility of appeal. Therefore, we are not depriving anyone of the right, if he so chooses, to have the matter tried in public in a police court and to have the whole business adjudicated upon there. All we say is that to put this kind of work upon police courts in the first instance is to put it in the wrong place and, by so doing, to increase and not to diminish the difficulties of the local authority in carrying out these requirements.
It is said that the local authority ought not to have the power. The local authority is the body that is charged first with representing the consumers in the area. I put that point generally, but it is in that capacity that it is already the enforcing authority under the food and drugs legislation, and it is in that capacity that it does many other things too. Secondly, it is the authority which is primarily concerned with buildings and the sanitary condition of buildings in the area.
The local authority already has power, subject to certain safeguards, to demolish a man's house. It has power to enforce wholesale rebuilding and reconstruction. Is it said that if it can do that, which after all is a fairly comprehensive power, it is yet not to be allowed to deal with a question of sanitary or hygiene requirements in the catering establishments? I find it impossible to see why a local authority qualified—allowed and supposed to be qualified—for one purpose should be thought unsatisfactory for the other.
I come to the provisions of the new Clause which we suggest. I will not go through them at length. That has been done to some extent already. I should like to point out that we have actually gone further to meet any reasonable requirements of the catering trade than the body which inquired into the matter did. We think that we are right in so doing. We have no wish to penalise


decent catering establishments. On the contrary, we want to encourage them and we want the co-operation of the trade as a whole, whether employers or workers in it, in enforcing in other establishments the proper standard of hygiene which already prevails in decent ones.
It is for that reason that we have gone so far to see that the catering establishment which is suitable for the purpose gets an absolutely fair deal with no chance whatever of injustice. What are the provisions? First, let the Parliamentary Secretary remember that this is only a power to make regulations. It is expected that that power will be used but the terms of it remain within the discretion of the Ministry. It is within the discretion of the Ministry when it is making provision to make exceptions, perhaps for small farm houses on the moorlands that sell food or other commodities.
It is left primarily to the Ministry to make the appropriate regulations in the matter but, having made them, there are certain obligations. The register must be compulsory. On the other hand, there is provision that anyone who is already carrying on business in catering premises is entitled to registration if he applies as soon as the regulations come into force. For mere administrative convenience he must apply. That is all he need do.
The local authority has no power to refuse his application in the first instance. Having accepted it in that way, it may at a later stage—we are not tied to the precise period of one month; I think that it is a fair one, but that is as may be—wish to remove the premises. First, it must put the immediate, punctual applicant on the register. That is a protection from the point of view of the catering trade and it is obviously an administrative convenience from the point of view of the local authority.
Next, we propose the setting up of a catering premises committee. There are precedents, not only in the food control committees to which my hon. Friend referred. If the Parliamentary Secretary will refresh his memory on the subject of education committees, he will find that they are very similar to what is proposed. They consist of a majority of representatives of the local authority and a minority of people who usually have been engaged

in or have experience in the business of teaching and education.
The next question is what is to happen when a caterer is required to bring his premises up to standard. We have provided the same sort of safeguards as are already given in the case of houses, with suitable modifications, and the kind of protection that is given when action is taken under Section 9 and the next following Sections of the Housing Act. The man has an opportunity to be heard. He is told what is required. He is invited to make suggestions. There is room for a compromise, there is power to postpone and to withdraw. There is everything to facilitate the sensible and the practical in dealing with a question which may vary in importance from the installation of a new sink to the rebuilding of a whole wing of the premises.
Surely that is a far better way of dealing with the matter than that of compelling a prosecution in the police court, when there is no opportunity whatever for a proper discussion and a compromise, when the matter has been brought to a head already and the whole thing has been reduced to a trial instead of what it ought to be, a piece of administrative good sense.
I say to the Parliamentary Secretary that I am shocked at the way in which such an eminently sensible report as we have had from the working party has been disregarded and, on this point, without consultation. I cannot believe that this kind of thing simply represents—to use a Christian name—since it does not happen to be that of the Parliamentary Secretary—a change from Philip drunk to Philip sober. I think there must be something a little more than that.
4.30 p.m.
I remember that there was once an overlord, as it were, hanging over the Ministries of Agriculture and Food. As an overlord, he has disappeared. I suppose it is his ghost that has spoken to the Parliamentary Secretary. I have every sympathy with the Parliamentary Secretary in his present position. He is like brave Ben Bow, one of his legs has been shot away and he is still trying to go on on the stump of the Ministry of Food. Let him not abandon hope and good sense. At the beginning he was right. If he does not trust his previous


judgment, let him trust the opinion those who do.
The hon. Gentleman should not listen to that ghost from another place. Let him do the right and sensible thing. Do not let him fly in the face of all the local authorities, of all the trade interests and of all common sense, and oblige people to go to the police court, which is not the right place to which to take them for this purpose. We are dealing with premises and not with people.

Dr. A. D. D. Broughton: The Report of the Catering Trade Working Party contained recommendations about registration for catering establishments. It was obvious that the working party had given a great deal of thought to this matter. One of the recommendations suggested that registration of new businesses should be prohibited until registration had been granted. That recommendation was signed by the chairman and 12 members of the working party. The other recommendation, which suggested that there should be registration as of right, was a minority recommendation signed by eight members of the working party. The Government seem to have turned their face against registration to such an extent that I feel it would be quite hopeless to ask them to accept the majority recommendation of the working party. But I am going to plead with the Parliamentary Secretary to accept the minority recommendation for registration as of right.
I was very alarmed by the Government's rejection of registration and their substitution of prosecutions, police court proceedings and heavy penalties, especially the penalty of closure of premises for a period which may be as long as two years. I feel that this policy of the Governments was a tactless and, indeed, a brutal way to raise standards of hygiene. It is certainly not the way in which to get the good will and co-operation of the catering industry.
We have been surprised to hear from the Minister that there have been no consultations with the catering industry about registration since the Second Reading of the Bill. Unlike the Government, I thought it would be wise to try to obtain the views of caterers on this matter and I approached the National Caterers' Federation and asked for its opinion on

this new policy which the Government has substituted in place of registration.
Before I inform the Committee of the opinion of the Caterers' Federation, I should like to say a word about it. It is a federation of small caterers. It is not a federation of men who are in big business in catering, but of the men who operate unit type businesses, that is to say, men who have one, or two, or possibly three shops. The Federation has a membership of well over 5,000 caterers. As the Parliamentary Secretary well knows, the Federation was originally opposed to registration.

Dr. Hill: And everything else.

Dr. Broughton: We are now discussing the policy of registration to which the Federation was opposed. But now, the Federation feels gravely concerned about the Government's alternative policy. Further consideration has been given to the matter. I have been informed that, while the federation still dislikes registration, it now regards it as the lesser of two evils. Rather than approve of the Minister's policy, it is willing to accept registration, provided that there are certain safeguards. The safeguards for which it has asked are that registration shall be as of right, at least for established caterers, and that there shall be a reasonable length of time allowed after the regulations come into operation for necessary structural alterations to be made, in order that caterers may comply with the regulations. I think that if the Minister would allow a period of about six months, that would satisfy the caterers. The other safeguard for which it is asking is that there should be local catering committees on local authorities and that the trade should be represented on those committees.
A few minutes before I came into this Chamber for this debate, I was handed an envelope. When I opened it, I found it contained a letter from the National Caterers' Federation—a copy of a letter which has been sent to the Ministry of Food. I assume that the Parliamentary Secretary will have received it this morning.

Dr. Hill: Dr. Hill indicated dissent.

Dr. Broughton: As the Parliamentary Secretary has not received it. I shall be pleased to let him have a copy. I think


the Committee should know what the Federation has to say on this matter.
The National Caterers' Federation views with apprehension the … Amendment to Clause 7 which was submitted by the Government during the Committee stage of the Bill. The greatly increased penalties, and the provision that catering premises can be closed for a period of not exceeding two years, on the application of the local authority, compels us to reassess our attitude towards registration of catering establishments, which earlier we had opposed and which is now superseded by this new Clause.
We are now of the opinion that of the two evils registration—with certain qualifications and assurances—would be better than what is now proposed. Where, before, an offending caterer could appeal, in the first instance, to the local authority he will now be arraigned before a court and exposed to a vast amount of undesirable—and probably unwarranted—publicity. Also, it was implied that by registration caterers would be afforded a reasonable time to adapt their premises to the standards laid down by the Ministers, it is now proposed that the caterer can be disqualified and be deprived of his livelihood for a minimum period of six months.
The letter goes on.
Having viewed the two proposals from every conceivable angle we are now convinced that registration, which concedes registration as of right to established caterers, affords a reasonable time to carry out structural alterations and which contains precise instructions to local authorities relating to the interpretation and the administering of the regulations, should be reinserted in the Bill.
If the Government would accept our proposals, then I suggest that they would have the useful and loyal co-operation of the caterers in trying to raise our standard of food hygiene. If the Parliamentary Secretary will accept our Amendment to Clause 9, page 11, line 14, which makes provision for excluding the power of the local authority to refuse any application; if he will accept our new Clause relating to the registration of catering premises, then a local authority which keeps a register of such premises will have to establish a catering premises committee.
Our Amendments do not state specifically that there should be a period of six months between the issue of the regulations and action by local authorities to ensure that they are being followed, but I feel satisfied that if the Minister would agree to that period, it could be put in the regulations.

Mr. Mitchison: If my hon. Friend will allow me, I think he will find that in subsection (1) of that proposed new Clause

there is a provision about time. It does not specify six months but leaves it to the Minister to fix the time.

Dr. Broughton: Yes, I thought it would be possible for the Minister to do so and I am merely asking him to make the period six months. For the reasons I have given, I earnestly ask the Minister to accept our proposals.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. George Darling: Like my hon. Friends, I hope that the Government, even at this stage, will drop their alternative proposal to registration and will return to it. I shall support my hon. Friends with some wider arguments that have a bearing on this matter and about which I am worried. If we are to depart from the principle of registration, which is implicit in so much of the legislation dealing with standards of marketing, the conduct of food premises, the manufacturing industries, and so on; if we depart from that principle in regard to catering, there may be requests for departure from registration in some of those other industries where registration has been so successful.
Agricultural marketing, for instance, has a bearing upon the question of the registration of catering premises. One of the results of registration in connection with agricultural marketing—indeed, one of the results aimed at in its organisation —has been to improve the quality of agricultural products. The farmers realise that improvement in the quality of milk, cattle and many products dealt with in agricultural marketing had to range further than sales from the farms if the consumer was to get a clean and pure supply of food. Therefore, the principle of registration has been carried further and has been applied to the licensing of abattoirs, dairies, meat shops and many other retailing trades dealing with the supply of food.
Obviously, all the efforts of the farmers, and the expense to which they are put under their own marketing arrangements to improve the quality of food, would be completely vitiated unless the principle of registration, and the raising of standards through it, applied right through the food trades to the final customer. I cannot see, therefore, why that principle should be departed from in the case of the sale of cooked foods,


which is what we are dealing with in the case of catering. As they say in a certain television programme, that principle must be kept right through to the end-product in all cases.
When the Parliamentary Secretary was trying to persuade us to accept the prosecution procedure instead of registration as the means of raising standards in the catering trades—and very unhappy he was when making his case—

Mr. Norman Dodds: I felt sorry for him.

Mr. Darling: So did we all. The Parliamentary Secretary said that the purpose of registration was, first, to let the local authorities know where the caterers were, secondly, to bring registration to an end if catering establishments were not up to standard and, thirdly, to apply higher standards through the medium of registration to new premises. We agree, and that is why, in general, we want registration.
Then the hon. Gentleman went on to criticise these good reasons for registration, and his first argument against this procedure was that keeping registers would involve a lot of work. That is nonsense. The local authorities have to keep registers now; we merely seek to extend their existing work slightly. Bakers, fish shops, dairies—practically all the other food trades in any town or city —are registered under present legislation. They have to be. All we are asking is that attached to these registers there shall be the catering premises in each town or city.
In any case, a register will have to be kept even if the prosecution proposals are adopted. How else will the inspectors know where the premises are? Does the Minister expect them to thumb through Kelly's Directory every time they want to find out if a café should be visited or not? The hon. Gentleman then went on to say that registration ought not to be brought to an end without a prosecution, and he made a great point of that. It is precisely because we do not agree with this that we want registration adopted.
Let us get down to practical things. I will quote from the report of the Medical Officer of Health for the City of Sheffield, dealing with the inspection of food premises. Under the Shops Acts there

are arrangements for inspecting premises. Preserved food factories have to be inspected. Ice-cream manufacturing plants and places of sale have to be registered and inspected. There has to be a register of milk distributors. There are nearly 1,000 of them in Sheffield who have to be registered. Hundreds of milk distributors have to be visited again and again because of the "special designations" procedure in regard to the milk they sell. Fish fryers have to be registered. The report said:
At the end of 1953, there were 404 fish friers' premises in the City. There were five new applications for registration during the year, and after investigation registration was granted in each case.
It is in this satisfactory way that registration works. Offensive trades have to be registered and investigated, and even pet shops and canal boats. The medical officer goes on to give a list of inspections made last year, and the number runs into thousands; then there is a very important line in the report which says:
Number of Cases in which Legal Proceedings taken—three.
They are getting the standards raised, not by putting the little men into the dock as the Government wish to do, but by persuasion. At the back of that persuasion there is all the time the formal sanction that, if the premises are not brought up to the required standard within a reasonable period, registration will be taken away. We want to keep people out of the police courts wherever possible, especially in cases of this kind.
As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) said, we are here dealing with premises and not with people. The police courts are the wrong places in which to deal with premises. This desire of the Government to put little businessmen into the dock in order to get their standards raised is a form of compulsion which we on this side do not like. As my hon. Friend has said, the form of registration proposed in these Amendments and in the new Clause is quite simple. It will amount to very little more than the making out of something like the form of application for a driving licence, and no driver objects to making out a form of that kind.
The hon. Gentleman went a little too far when he said that there was difficulty about form filling. Surely application for the registration of catering premises will


not involve anything more than the completing of a simple form. Look at the stupid situation in which we are going to be if that procedure is not followed and if the Government insist upon their own proposal. Under the Government's proposal, a person can open a new café in quite unsuitable premises, and, as far as I can see, the local authority will be unable to prevent him from doing so. The only way in which he could be stopped would be by prosecuting him after he had started business. That seems to me to be altogether wrong.
I am sure that if during the Committee stage the Government had not brought forward the Amendment providing for prosecution instead of registration, we should have asked for assurances about the procedure of registration in regard to catering premises. I know that I should have done so, because this was one of the things the Co-operative societies had asked me to do. There is no point in going over it all again because the assurances for which I would have asked are expressed in our Amendments and in the new Clause. We wanted the automatic registration of existing premises, and for the continuing registration to be dependent on improvements being made in cases where premises fell below the required standards.
We were also going to ask for assurances—we did not think it necessary to put them into the Bill, and were quite prepared to take the word of the Minister in the matter—that inspectors should be instructed to give reasonable time for the people concerned to bring their premises up to the required standards. We were also going to ask whether something could be done to get the administration of registration put into the hands of a council committee, the members of which would include representatives of the trade as co-opted members. We are convinced that that is the best way of handling the problem, and the views expressed by the Caterers' Federation sustain us in that view.
Our way of doing the job would mean that the little man would have the chance of achieving the standards we require in a reasonable space of time. All he would have to do would be to show his willingness and desire to make the required improvements, and then his registration would be continued. He would have the

representatives of his trade on the local committee to see that he received fair play.
I cannot help thinking, in spite of the assurances given by the hon. Gentleman about no pressure being brought to bear from any quarter upon his Ministry, that there has been indirect pressure of some sort, at any rate on the part of the big caterers. It has certainly not come from the little men. But even if I am wrong in thinking that, the impression will still be held abroad, due to the maladroit way in which the Government have handled the matter, that the big caterers and the Government are ganging up so that the big people will have the chance to put some of their small competitors out of business through the method of prosecution.
I speak for a trade organisation which is in competition with both the big concerns and the small private caterers. We want fair competition for all, for the Co-ops. and for the other two as well, with no advantages given by the Government to any one of the three groups. Neither do we want any obstacles put in the way of any of these groups to prevent them making the progress which their initiative deserves. This has been the view of the Co-ops. for more than 100 years.
It seems to me that the Government, whether they intend to do so or not, are proposing to interfere with the free play of competition, because it is the little men who will be kicked—not the big people— by the prosecution procedure. Under the system of registration we can give fair play to everybody, which is what we want.
Seeing that the Government have got themselves into this awful mess by the way in which they have handled the situation, I hope that they will now take advantage of our offer to go back to the position as it existed on Second Reading. In that event, we will give them all the help they need to put the Bill into proper shape in regard to this matter of registration, and speed it on its way.

5.0 p.m.

Sir H. Linstead: Until the speech of the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. G. Darling), It seemed to me that most of this debate had taken place in an atmosphere of almost com-


plete unreality. It was not until the hon. Gentleman produced the conclusive argument against the adoption of the Clause which he was supporting that I felt that some element of reality had entered the Committee.
I wish to touch on the background to the removal of registration of catering premises to which the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) referred. By the time he had finished he had effectively disposed of most of the suggestions he made about pressure having been brought to bear by various commercial interests on the Ministry of Food.
I remind the Committee of two inferences which he asked the Committee to draw. One was that a certain noble Lord, having an interest in the food business, had used his influence to have those provisions taken out of the Bill. If that assumption is to be believed, that noble Lord was extremely maladroit in what he did, because, if he had the influence which the hon. Member suggested, he surely would have used that influence to prevent the insertion of the provisions in the Bill in the first place instead of having them clumsily exposed and then withdrawn.

Mr. Willey: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Bill was prepared by the late Administration, that it went through another place without Amendment, and that it is only at this late stage that, by Parliamentary guile, it was hoped to get it through with as little discussion as possible?

Sir H. Linstead: Is the hon. Member aware that the Bill was introduced in another place by the present Government? I shall not waste time in dealing further with the preposterous assumption which the hon. Member made. If what he said was true, those provisions would never have appeared in the Bill when it was introduced in another place, to be subsequently withdrawn.

Mr. Dodds: Can the hon. Member then say who was responsible for them?

Sir H. Linstead: I was just going to produce something of an answer to that question. If the hon. Member wishes to know—

Mr. Dodds: We all do.

Sir H. Linstead: There was a number of hon. Members of this House, such as myself, with no interest whatsoever in the catering business, who considered the Bill in the ordinary course of their Parliamentary duties. For reasons which I will shortly mention, we came to the conclusion that the Bill would be a better Bill and would achieve its objects equally effectively if those provisions were withdrawn.
If I may draw on my own experience, there was a time when I was responsible for the enforcement of another set of Acts of Parliament in which there was a question of registered and unregistered premises. Drawing on that experience, I assure the Committee that from the point of view of enforcement and of knowing where the premises are, it matters not at all to an efficient authority whether it has a statutory list, or indeed whether it has any.
As the hon. Member for Hillsborough said, a list has to be kept in the offices of the authority, whether or not the authority is required by Act of Parliament to keep it. The difference between having a statutory register and having one kept for convenience is simply that every year one has to renew the statutory register and has to go through the mechanical process of collecting names and addresses again, and probably a 5s. registration fee. One has to waste an enormous amount of time and manpower doing something which could be done without that machinery.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: Is the hon. Member really trying to tell the Committee that, quite spontaneously and without expert advice, he and some of his foolhardy colleagues decided to mutilate the Bill?

Sir H. Linstead: Those are not the words I would myself choose to describe my activities.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: But are they the words that apply?

Sir H. Linstead: As an hon. Member, I have no hesitation in advising that registration is not necessary to achieve our purpose.

Mr. Willey: The working party reported that all these premises are potential sources of infection and that their


continuance constitutes a definite health hazard. Is the hon. Member suggesting that a local authority with any sense of public duty will not have a record of these premises in its area? Does he suggest that any Conservative authority in an urban area will not, quite properly, take steps to know what catering premises there are in its area, when it has been reported that they are a source of food poisoning? Surely the obligation is on the local authority. The argument which the hon. Member must face is whether we should make easier the work of the local authority in knowing where the catering premises are.

Sir H. Linstead: The hon. Member could not have done me the compliment of listening to what I was saying when he made that interruption, because I was agreeing with the hon. Member for Hills-borough that, of course, every local authority will require to keep a list of those premises. They have one at the present time for their duties under the 1938 Act, and will have one in future, whether or not by Act of Parliament.

Mr. Willey: No obligation.

Sir H. Linstead: There will be no obligation, but the local authority will keep a list of establishments just as it does at present.
In order to reinforce their arguments, the supporters of the proposed new Clause have reminded the Committee that local authorities want registration. Of course they do, and of course medical officers want registration. The fact that it means more work in the office—[HON. MEMBERS: "Less work."]—to keep an annual register up to date and more people employed to do it—[HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."]—I cannot see how hon. Members imagine that registers can be kept up to date without clerks.

Mr. Darling: The hon. Member said, "More clerks."

Sir H. Linstead: I will merely make the point clear, that the fact that local authorities and medical officers of health support the idea of having a register is not to my mind in any sense a conclusive argument that they really need the statutory powers to do that work.
I come to the real argument on the Amendment which was advanced by the hon. Member for Hillsborough. He

quoted the fact that a particular local authority in the enforcement of some analogous duty had dealt with thousands of cases but in fact had only prosecuted in three. That is the element of reality which I want to emphasise in this debate. In fact, prosecutions under this Bill will be evidence that local authorities are not doing their job properly. The Bill will only succeed if there are no prosecutions, or only the very minimum of prosecutions. In this piece of legislation we are placing a weapon in the hands of the administering authorities which they can use to encourage catering establishments to observe a higher standard, without the necessity of bringing the proprietors either to the police courts or before a committee of the local authority.
All we need to do is to give them a weapon, and the smaller the weapon that we give them, so long as it is adequate to do the job, the better. We do not need the gross, heavy weapon of the threat of withdrawal of registration by the local authority and of being put out of business. We can content ourselves with the equally serviceable but much less frightening weapon of proceedings under the 1938 Act, because there is ample provision in the Bill to enable the sanitary inspector to use his influence to educate the owner of the catering establishment to bring it up to a proper standard. [HON. MEMBERS: "In the courts."] No. I have already made it clear that no recourse to the courts is necessary.

Mr. Darling: All the references that I took from the medical officer's report were references to regulations which involve registration. The proceedings which the medical officer and his inspectors were taking were under registration —which makes their job infinitely easier —without prosecution.

Sir H. Linstead: But nothing that the hon. Member has said destroys the validity of what I was saying—that the Bill will succeed in its objective, not by prosecution or by bringing offenders before a committee of the local authority, but through day-by-day education by the sanitary inspectors of the proprietors of catering establishments. It is because I am satisfied that there is enough sanction at the disposal of medical officers of health and sanitary inspectors without the necessity of registration that I say that my


hon. Friend is right in removing registration, which, like nationalisation, is after all only a word—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—and recognising that the cure of the evils at which this Measure is aimed will be by education and not through the machinery of the courts.

Mr. Darling: If all the arguments of the hon. Member for Putney are sound as they apply to the catering trades, why did he not suggest that the procedure of prosecution should apply to all food trades and rule registration out?

Sir H. Linstead: At the moment we are discussing only this word.

Mr. H. Rhodes: It has been suggested that small shopkeepers are not very much affected by this Bill, but I suggest that they are deeply concerned with the question of registration. Those familiar with the northern cities, particularly thickly populated areas such as the one I come from, know that it is the little shop round the corner which sells loaves of bread, a few sandwiches and a little food that will be affected by this Bill as much as any other shop, and probably more.
In the last few years there has been a tremendous turnover in the sale of such small properties. Very often they are poor blocks of property, but they contain a shop and folks think that they can make a fortune if only they get a shop and start selling something. A lot of these people have been imposed upon and have paid more for the shop than it is worth. One reason is that people have nowhere to go to find out whether the shop is any good or not. They cannot go to the local authority and ask what are the prospects for such a shop and how much it will cost, but if this Amendment were accepted they could do so.
A week last Saturday I received a letter from a man in a sanatorium. He is in an advanced stage of T.B. He bought one of these shops round the corner three years ago—he has now been in the sanatorium for several months. Because a canteen was started in the small factory near the shop, the employees there ceased going to the shop to buy sandwiches, bread and so on and business began to decline. The worry might have contributed to the cause of this man's T.B. for all I know. I do not know much

about it, but I do know the man is in an advanced stage of T.B.
He and his wife worried about the decline in their business. They did the obvious thing—started looking around to find out if the person from whom they bought the shop had sold them a "pup." They could not find the person for the very good and obvious reason that she was dead. She had died of T.B.
The man did not write to me because of the £800 he had paid for the shop, nor about how he was to find the remainder of the money, advanced by the Halifax Building Society or from whomever it was borrowed. He wrote to me because the local authority had made a demolition order, and that demolition order expired about a week ago yesterday. I ask the Minister what we can do, while this Bill is going through to help in this direction. It is a social matter as well as a matter of premises. If there were registration it would be possible for people to inquire about such properties. I ask the 'Minister to reconsider the question of registration because an issue has to be made of all these things sooner or later, and it might as well be now.

5.15 p.m.

Dr. Hill: May I say at the outset that I make no complaint whatever about the late consideration of this set of proposals, for I think they are worthy of intelligent scrutiny to see if, in fact, they do stand up to certain important tests.
I regret very much the references by the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) to my noble Friend Lord Woolton. I think they were quite unnecessary and quite without foundation. After all, what was the point? A point was based on the question as to whether there had been representations from the catering trade—and the implications of what the hon. Member said were that there had been such representations and that this change had been made in response to such representations with Lord Woolton being associated with those representations. I want to assure the Committee that that is completely and utterly without foundation. I shall later answer the question of how these modified proposals came into being, but there is no foundation whatever for that suggestion.
The challenging question was put to me of what consultations there had been or what representations had been received


from the trade, implying that there had been such representations. When the answer was given that there were no such representations, the hon. Member's hon. Friends took their position on new ground—that it was the absence of such consultations that formed the gravamen of the charge.
I want to get down to the essence of the series of Amendments, for there is something quite new in them. The hon. Member made play with the suggestion that these had arisen partly or largely as a result of consultations with the National Caterers' Federation. I make no complaint about that; it is a matter of history——

Mr. Willey: I did not say that.

Dr. Hill: The hon. Member's hon. Friend, the hon. Member for Batley and Morley (Dr. Broughton), referred to those consultations and named the body. I am making no complaint about it, but it is only fair to record that this is a body which was bitterly opposed at the outset to the general conception of things, a body which approved regulations on the clear understanding that they could never be the subject of a prosecution. Its attitude at the outset was rather unhelpful, but if now, in consultation with the hon. Member and his friends, its attitude has become more helpful, that is all the better. The hon. Gentleman stated—[Interruption.] If it has changed its mind, perhaps others with greater wisdom can also change their minds without dark allegations being made about the theory, or purpose or motive.
The hon. Gentleman made it clear that there were three important points in this proposal. One was the automatic registration of existing premises. That is interesting. It is something which the party opposite criticised bitterly in Committee. The hon. Member for Hills-borough called it a "sell out." The hon. and learned Gentleman called it "appalling"——

Hon. Members: Which one?

Dr. Hill: The hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison)——

Mr. Turner-Samuels: Mr. Turner-Samuels rose——

Dr. Hill: The hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) also spoke, but I did not have time to read his speech, and I thought I might

find what I wanted in the speech of his hon. and learned Friend.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: It was not my hon. and learned Friend; the Parliamentary Secretary looked at me.

Dr. Hill: At any rate, we should recognise greater wisdom when it comes, from wherever it may come.
I wish to come to the second and third parts of the proposal. I think I describe it fairly when I say that it involves all local authorities concerned with the administration of the terms of this Bill, in the formation of a catering premises committee. It will be a requirement of all local authorities to create such a committee. Secondly, and here I think that it would be wise to use the actual words:
A local authority which has established a catering premises committee may delegate and, save in so far as the Minister may otherwise direct, shall delegate to that committee …
and then the subsequent words describe the functions of the authority in the matter of registration. In other words, that committee having been formed,
save in so far as the Minister shall otherwise direct
it shall have delegated to it registration functions.
The local authority,
save in so far as the Minister may otherwise direct
is required to appoint this additional committee on which it shall have a majority. But the committee shall include representatives of the trade and the workers, and shall, unless the Minister otherwise directs, be required to determine the issue of registrations. Thirdly, it shall be the body whose consent is necessary before any prosecution is launched under the heading of catering premises.
We have had enough argument about the merits of registration and disqualification. I wish to put this to the Committee as a local government question of some importance outwith that particular compass. As matters stand, the responsibility is firmly placed on the local authority. It shall be the duty of every local authority to carry into execution and enforce the provisions of any part of this Bill.
I ask the Committee, quite apart from the other controversy, is it wise that in


this respect a local authority shall be required to appoint a committee and to delegate to it the whole of its functions on the matter of registration of premises? Secondly, is it right that the permission of such a committee shall be necessary before the local authority charged with the responsibility under this Bill is free to engage in a prosecution?
The council, meeting as a council, confronted by advice offered by a committee on which it has a majority, is unable to do what it wishes to do because it needs first of all to get the consent of a subsidiary body which it has appointed and on which it has a majority.

Mr. Mitchison: Not only has it at least a majority, but it rests entirely with the local authority as to how large is that majority.

Dr. Hill: I do not stress the point, but a majority is required in the composition of the committee. It often happens, as we know from experience, that a theoretical majority is not an actual majority.

Mr. G. Darling: It is a weak argument.

Mr. Mitchison: What is the experience of the hon. Gentleman?

Dr. Hill: If the hon. and learned Member is asking me about by experience of local government——

Mr. Mitchison: Yes.

Dr. Hill: —it is as a whole-time officer in local government. But I suggest that the Committee should meet the argument in relation to the constitutional position of local authorities in this matter.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: Would the Parliamentary Secretary permit me——

Dr. Hill: No, if the Committee will allow me, I will complete the theme of my argument——

Mr. Turner-Samuels: It would only take a second.

Dr. Hill: —without going into a personal recital of my local government and other experience.
I wish the Committee to consider what this may mean in practice. Caterers, as members of the committee, would be able

to take part in decisions about the registration of new caterers. The hon. Gentleman referred to the food control committees. He knows, as I do, that the main difficulty which arose—I wish to put it plainly without suggesting that it was a universal difficulty—was that caterer members of the committee concerned with applications for new licences often carried their weight against the licensing of new potential competitors. Is it right that the caterer members of this newly appointed committee should play a part in determining whether new registrations should be accepted?

Mr. Willey: This is important, because I think that unwittingly the Parliamentary Secretary is casting a grave reflection upon the food control committees. He has created the impression that the caterer members put their trade interests first. I think that an unwarranted reflection. My own experience of the committees is that they were admirable and that they did a very ticklish job in a first-rate manner. I have not known a Minister of Food who failed to pay tribute to the work done by those committees. After all, there was then a combination of local authority representatives and trade interests. To suggest that the trade interests used their position to their own advantage is unwise.

Dr. Hill: I made it perfectly plain that I did not suggest that it was a common difficulty, but it was a difficulty which arose. Should not decisions to end registrations be taken by the local authority as a whole and not by a committee including representatives of catering interests? There may be other difficulties, some of which would rarely arise—for instance, the difficulty of steps of one kind or another having to be taken against caterers who are individual members of the committee.
5.30 p.m.
Let us pass to the second point, that dealing with prosecution in the matter of premises. The suggestion, apparently, is that a prosecution in a matter of premises can be launched only if the consent of this committee of the local authority is obtained. This will put caterers in a special position. A prosecution can be launched for another kind of establishment on the report of the sanitary inspector to the local authority and on a decision by the local authority, but in the


case of the catering establishment there will be this special delaying and protecting provision. I am demonstrating the implications of this proposed procedure.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: Mr. Turner-Samuels rose——

Dr. Hill: I will not give way.
Of course, this pleases the caterers; of course, it derives from consultation with the caterers. It delays and makes less likely prosecutions for offences. This is an important matter affecting local authorities and perhaps I may be told whether they have been consulted about it. There was time for me to make only one inquiry, which I made by telephone to the Association of Municipal Corporations. There has been no consultation with them about this proposal, which involves a requirement to establish a new committee and a new kind of procedure.
Quite apart from the issues of consultation, is this a desirable procedure to introduce? I think it is not, because it delays and makes less likely prosecution in that small number of cases in which prosecution is desirable. I believe this is the caterers' dream, the caterers' charter. The remarkable point is this: we have been confronted by arguments that we were being weak and unwilling to grapple with this problem, but now we are being accused of being so brutal in bringing offenders to justice in the police courts that some hon. Members wish to erect this structure to prevent a local authority from itself deciding issues of registration and to prevent a local authority from itself deciding issues of prosecution without the permission of one of its committees. This would introduce a delaying procedure.
I believe that an analysis of these proposals shows that they are open to serious difficulties and weaknesses as a method of dealing with this position, and I believe that we are back to the main controversy between registration and disqualification. I suspect that there may be many hon. Members who, while they are on the side of registration, feel that this mode of applying registration is in itself open to a number of objections.
A good deal has been said about the change of attitude in this matter, and that change came about when we considered the representations which were made for exclusions from registration. I will give simply the example of the small

boarding-house, the house at the seaside which at holiday time becomes a catering establishment for six or eight weeks. Other representations have been made in respect of moorland cafés. Some references were made to them in today's debate and some were made in the previous debate by the Member for Northfield (Mr. Chapman).
We examined the case which was put forward for certain exclusions from registration and we tried to find ways of separating the groups for which exemption could properly be claimed in terms of the size of the boarding-house or establishment. When we considered a method of registration which necessarily involved exclusions, particularly of certain kinds of smaller establishments where the danger might not be as small in proportion, bearing in mind the need to ensure that under certain circumstances it should be possible to close down premises whatever their size, we reached the conclusion that the important sanction behind this matter should be the power under certain circumstances to disqualify premises for use as catering premises, whatever they were.
The second consideration which led us to our conclusion was that under the 1938 Act relatively few regulations were made or, indeed, were possible. Under this Bill there will be a wealth of new law in the form of regulations. It seems to us to be right that a local authority seeking to withdraw the registration of catering premises and so to close the business on the ground they had not observed this or that regulation, ought not to be in a position to withdraw it without being willing to take the case to the courts and, first of all, prove that an offence had been committed.
Under the registration method, having considered the report of the sanitary inspector and having heard what the man has to say, it is possible for the local authority to withdraw the registration, subject to an appeal to a bench of magistrates. Quite apart from the possibilities of an appeal, in our view such a withdrawal of the registration should take place only when it has been proved in court that an offence has been committed. In our view a local authority should not be in a position to withdraw the registration when it is unwilling to prove the allegation in court.
I have a good deal of sympathy with what has been said today but I would draw attention to the third consideration —the sanction behind the sanitary inspector. We all want the vast majority of his work to be done as it is under the Factory Acts by the sensible persuasion of the visiting inspector, in the knowledge that if he meets with resistance there is a sanction behind him. Under the registration system, the sanction is that if a man does not bring his premises into conformity with the standards, his registration is taken away. That is the implied sanction.

Mr. G. Darling: Subject to appeal.

Dr. Hill: Yes, but if a man does not come up to scratch we have power to withdraw his registration subject to appeal, under the registration procedure. That is an important sanction.
Under the disqualification procedure, if a man does not observe the law we have the power to take him to court and, if he is convicted, to make application for his disqualification in those premises. In both cases the sanction is strong; in both cases it is easily possible for a great deal of persuasive work to be done within those sanctions. At the same time, we think it wrong for a local authority, having all the regulations—and now having the enormous number of listed and defined offences which were not available to it under the Section of the 1938 Act, which was the main legal code for this purpose—to be in such a position.
There has been, and this House has knowingly done it, a multiplication of the offences concerned. We therefore think it right and proper to say, "if you have offended, we shall—having failed by persuasive methods to secure an improvement in your premises or your conduct —prosecute you." But only if there has been a successful prosecution can the possibility lie of an appeal to the courts to bring that to an end. I would, therefore say to the House that this is a reversal of wrongs. We are now the brutal ones, insisting on using the machinery of the law to make this Act really workable. The party opposite, after its consultations with the caterers —and I use not the offensive language which hon. Members opposite would have used of such consultations by us—has been led to regard this as a caterers' Bill.

We believe it to be a Bill to protect the public—and we put the public first.

Dr. Edith Summerskill: The Parliamentary Secretary has once more faced the House and presented a pathetic spectacle in his desperate attempt to defend the Government in a matter which is indefensible. We have listened to him dealing with details of administration, and avoiding the whole principle. He knows as well as I that the politician who is bankrupt of argument always depends on proving how a certain measure is unworkable because some administrative detail would not be acceptable.
If what he said is true why is it that all the organisations which we have mentioned, the local government organisations, have not made representations on these points which he has raised this afternoon? He told us that he telephoned one local government organisation and asked whether it approved of certain principles which have been mentioned today. Did he ask whether it approved or disapproved of registration? He has already said that these local government officials would not accept registration. Did he ask them this afternoon?

Dr. Hill: I dealt with one point—the proposal appearing on the Order Paper yesterday affecting the constitutional position of local authorities. I inquired, not what their views were but whether they had been consulted on this point. In the case of the organisation I telephoned, it said "No." There is no more to it than that.

Dr. Summerskill: I am surprised that the Parliamentary Secretary should take the trouble to ring up about one administrative point and not ask about the main principle.
I should like to ask another question. The Parliamentary Secretary was asked, quite rightly, whether representations have been made—another kind of representation—by the catering associations with regard to registration. The hon. Gentleman said that no catering organisation had made representations to him on the point. He also said that none of the organisations representing local government officials had done so. Has the Parliamentary Secretary met a group of hon. Members on the Government


back benches who represent different business organisations? Have they made any representations, or can he give an unqualified "No"?

Dr. Hill: In the course of the legitimate and proper exercise of their functions, my right hon. Friend and his predecessors have met hon. Members on both sides of the House.

Dr. Summerskill: Then the Parliamentary Secretary has been deceiving the House.

Hon. Members: Oh.

The Deputy-Chairman: I think that the right hon. Lady should not use un-Parliamentary language.

5.45 p.m.

Dr. Summerskill: I withdraw "deceive" and suggest "misleading." I think that is a Parliamentary term.
I suggest that the Parliamentary Secretary has deliberately misled the House this afternoon. He was asked whether the catering organisations had made representations to him, and, full of wrath and indignation, he said "No." But, of course, they would not do anything so naїve. They have approached their Members of Parliament. Hon. Members opposite, I am sure—I am not criticising them for it—have also their own business interests, and we therefore have the business interests represented through the hon. Members—and they have been to see the Parliamentary Secretary. In other words, he has received representations from the business interests, and here we have the result.
If it is thought for one moment that we on this side of the Committee are deploying doctrinaire arguments and have not sound support from those with understanding of this question, I would refer hon. Members to the setting up of the Catering Trade Working Party. I have a special interest in it because it was set up in November, 1948, when I was at the Ministry of Food. Indeed, this whole great social Measure stems, of course, from the work of previous Labour Governments. I have a list of its members before me, and I ask hon. Members on both sides to be guided, not by what the Parliamentary Secretary has said but by the Report of the Catering Trade Working Party.
I shall not state all the names, but let me remind the House who were represented on it. The chairman was Sir William G. Savage, M.D., B.Sc., D.P.H., a former county medical officer of health. The first member was a hotel director. The second—I am advertising these firms, but nevertheless they have done a good piece of work—represented Fuller's Limited, who have multiple shops all over the country. The third member represented the Ministry of Health, and the next was a representative of the workers in the shops.
There was a representative of the Scottish Co-operative Wholesale Society, who have big catering interests. Then there was a representative of the Ministry of Food. And there was also a member of the Council of the Hotel and Catering Institute. Next, the Central Public Health Laboratory. There was a county alderman of Cheshire. There was the Director of Catering Advisory Service, King Edward's Hospital Fund for London. It had a respresentative of Forte's and Co. Ltd.—a big multiple firm who know all about these questions of administration which the Parliamentary Secretary has posed this afternoon because he thinks there are hon. Members on these benches who have no knowledge of business. These businessmen were there to consider those questions.
Then it had a representative of Strand Hotels Limited—Lyons is represented. Then follow more workers' representatives; William Hancock and Co. Ltd.—more caterers—and other health departments. Here we have an excellent committee considering all the questions that the Parliamentary Secretary has put to us this afternoon.

Captain J. A. L. Duncan: Was there a representative of the small man?

Dr. Summerskill: There were plenty of representatives of the small man. There were representatives of many of the trade unions who, I would remind the hon. and gallant Member, are also consumers.
That committee worked for two years. It had 33 meetings. It called on the small man and it called on catering establishments. The report says:
Groups of members paid visits to catering establishments of different types, to manufacturers of catering equipment …


and to exhibitions and so on. They invited women's organisations to give evidence, and they also invited the local authorities.
Here are the answers to the Parliamentary Secretary:
Evidence was taken from the catering trade and from associations of local authorities and of officers of local authorities.
Yet the Parliamentary Secretary gave only a quarter of an hour of his time to explain to the House how the officers of local authorities would be extremely annoyed——

Dr. Hill: By the Amendment.

Dr. Summerskill: Certainly, if this catering premises committee was set up. These officers of local authorities have no doubt expressed their views on every aspect of this Measure.
Turning to the recommendations of this powerful working party of the catering trade, I can only say that the first one was:
All catering establishments should be required to register with the appropriate local authority.
There, surely, is the answer to the Parliamentary Secretary. However, now we come along with a different proposition in order to secure safeguards for all catering establishments.
I also want to say a word to the hon. Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead), who suggested that if this Amendment was accepted, it would mean that a lot of clerical workers would be involved, while somebody else suggested that, if the proposal of the hon. Member for Putney was

accepted, it would cause the employment of more sanitary inspectors. Of course, it would, but the Parliamentary Secretary will agree that if we had registration in addition, it would be a constant reminder to these little proprietors of dirty cafes that they have to observe certain standards of cleanliness. Registration in itself would be equivalent to a squad of vigilant sanitary inspectors, because it would be doing their work for them.

So I must say once more that we are very disappointed. We had hoped that after all this time—we have been debating this matter since 3.30 p.m.—the Minister would have had second thoughts. Throughout the course of the discussions on this Bill, we have deployed reasoned arguments, and time after time the Minister has accepted our propositions and our Amendments. It has been quite unprecedented, and of the pages of Amendments which we put down to this Bill the Government have accepted a very large number.

This Amendment is one of the most important of them all, and I was hoping that the Minister would have had time to think about it and would have been able to accept it, but, once more, an important public health Measure has been emasculated by the party opposite, and we shall have to divide the Committee when the time comes.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 197; Noes, 229.

Division No. 231.]
AYES
[5.54 p.m.


Acland, Sir Richard
Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Albu, A. H.
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Burton, Miss F. E.
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)


Andersen, Frank (Whitehaven)
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Fernyhough, E.




Fienburgh, W.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Callaghan, L. J.
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)


Awbery, S. S.
Champion, A. J.
Follick, M.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Chapman, W. D.
Foot, M. M.


Balfour, A.
Chetwynd, G. R.
Forman, J. C.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Clunie, J.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)


Bence, C. R.
Coldrick, W.
Freeman, John (Watford)


Benn, Hon. Wedgwood
Collick, P. H.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.


Benson, G.
Collins, V. J.
Gibson, C. W.


Beswick, F.
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Greenwood, Anthony


Bing G. H. C.
Crossman, R. H. S.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)


Blackburn, F.
Daines, P.
Hale, Leslie


Blenkinsop, A.
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)


Blyton, W. R.
Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Hamilton, W. W.


Boardman, H.
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hannan, W.


Bottemley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Hardy, E. A.


Bowdon, H. W.
Deer, G.
Hargreaves, A.


Bowies F. G.
Dodds, N. N.
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)


Brockway, A. F.
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Hastings, S.




Hayman, F. H.
Mayhew, C. P.
Skeffington, A. M.


Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)
Mellish, R. J.
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Messer, Sir F.
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)


Herbison, Miss M.
Mikardo, Ian
Snow, J. W.


Hobson, C. R.
Mitchison, G. R.
Sorensen, R. W.


Holman, P.
Monslow, W.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Holmes, Horace
Moody, A. S.
Sparks, J. A.


Houghton, Douglas
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.
Steele, T.


Hoy, J. H.
Morley, R.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Moyle, A.
Stross, Dr. Barnett


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Mulley, F. W.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Oliver, G. H.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Oswald, T.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Owen, W. J.
Tomney, F.


Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Padley, W. E.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Jeger, George (Goole)
Palmer, A. M. F
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Jeger, Mrs Lena
Pannell, Charles
Viant, S. P.


Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Pargiter, G. A.
Warbey, W. N.



Parker, J.



Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech
Paton, J.
Weitzman, D.


Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Wells, William (Walsall)


Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Wheeldon, W. E.


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Probert, A. R.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Keenan, W..
Proctor, W. T.
While, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.).


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W
Pryde, D. J.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W


King, Dr. H. M.
Rankin, John
Wigg, George.


Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Reeves, J.
Wilkins, W. A.


Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Willey, F. T


Lipton, Lt.-Col. M..
Reid, William (Camlachie)
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


MacColl, J. E
Rhodes, H.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


McGovern, J..
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'll'y)


McInnes, J
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


McKay, John (Wallsend)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


McLeavy, F.
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.
Ross, William
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Shackleton, E. A. A.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Shurmer, P. L. E.
Wyatt, W. L.


Mann, Mrs. Jean
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)



Manuel, A. C.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Mr. Wallace and




 Mr. James Johnson.




NOES


Aitken, W. T.
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Glover, D.


Alport, C. J. M.
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Godber, J. B.


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Cole, Norman
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.


Amory, Rt. Hon. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Colegate, W. A.
Gower, H. R.


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Graham, Sir Fergus


Arbuthnot, John
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Crookshank Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Crouch, R. F.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)


Baldwin, A. E.
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)


Barber, Anthony
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Hay, John


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel


Beach, Ma[...]. Hicks
Davidson, Viscountess
Heath, Edward


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Higgs, J. M. C.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Deedes, W. F.
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Digby, S. Wingfield
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount


Birch, Nigel
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Hirst, Geoffrey


Bishop, F. P.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Holland-Martin, C. J.


Black, C. W.
Doughty, C. J. A.
Hope, Lord John


Bowen, E. R.
Drewe, Sir C.
Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. Sir T. (Richmond)
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence


Braine, B. R.
Elliott, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)



Errington, Sir Eric
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Erroll, F. J.
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)


Braithwaite, Sir Gurney
Fell, A.
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Finlay, Graeme
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.


Brooman-White, R. C.
Fisher, Nigel
Hulbert, Wing Cmdr. N. J.


Brown, Jack (Govan)
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Hurd, A. R.


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Fletcher, Sir Walter (Bury)
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)


Bullard, D. G..
Ford, Mrs. Patricia
Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.


Burden, F. F. A.
Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)
Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.


Campbell, Sir David
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Iremonger, T. L.


Carr, Robert
Gammans, L. D.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)


Channon, H.
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Sir Winston
George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)







Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter
Sharples, Maj. R. C.


Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Moore, Sir Thomas
Shepherd, William


Kaberry, D.
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Keeling, Sir Edward
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Smyth, Brig, J. G. (Norwood)


Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Neave, Airey
Snadden, W. McN.


Kerr, H. W.
Nicholls, Harmar
Spearman, A. C. M.


Lambert, Hon. G.
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Speir, R. M.


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Nield, Basil (Chester)
Stevens, Geoffrey


Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Lindsay, Martin
Oakshott, H. D.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Linstead, Sir H. N.
Odey, G. W.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
O'Neill, Hon. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Studholme, H. G.



Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Summers, G. S.


Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Sutcliffe, Sir Harold


Longden, Gilbert
Osborne, C.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Low, Rt. Hon. A. R. W.
Page, R. G.
Teeling, W.


Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Partridge, E.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Perkins, Sir Robert
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


MeAdden, S. J.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


McCallum, Major D.
Pitman, I. J.



McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Pitt, Miss E. M.
Tilney, John


Macdonald, Sir Peter
Powell, J. Enoch
Touche, Sir Gordon


Mackeson, Brig, Sir Harry
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Vane, W. M. F.


Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Prior-Palmer, Brig, O. L.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Redmayne, M.
Vosper, D. F.


Maclean, Fitzroy
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Remnant, Hon. P.
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Ridsdale, J. E.
Wall, Major Patrick


Maitland Cmdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Robertson, Sir David
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir Reginald
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Markham, Major Sir Frank.
Robson-Brown, W.
Waterhouse Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Marlowe, A. A. H
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Weilwood, W.


Marpies, A. E.
Roper, Sir Harold
William, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Maudling, R.
Russell, R. S.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Medlicott, Brig. F.
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas
Wood, Hon. R.


Mellor, Sir John.
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.



Molson, A. H. E
Scott, R. Donald
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Wills and Mr. Robert Allan.


Question put, and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — Clause 13.;(FOOD AND DRUGS AUTHORITIES.)

Dr. Broughton: I beg to move, in page 14, line 34, to leave out "forty," and to insert "thirty-five."

The Deputy-Chairman: Perhaps it will be for the convenience of the Committee to consider at the same time the other two Amendments to Clause 13.

Dr. Broughton: I think that would be convenient, Sir Rhys.
At an earlier stage my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) asked the Government if they would alter the provision in this Clause for a 40,000 population to a lower figure. In the excellent speech he made he put forward a very strong argument in favour of the reduction. We understood the Minister of Food to say that he would consider the matter.
We raise it again at this stage. We have given further thought to the problem and are anxious that the figure should be reduced. We now ask the Minister to substitute "thirty-five

thousand." Concern is felt on this subject in the constituency which I have the honour to represent, because Batley has a population of just over 40,000 and will not be affected adversely by the Bill, but Morley has just under 40,000 and will not be a food and drugs authority called upon to operate the Bill.
It is a great pity, because a great deal of good work has already been done by the borough council of Morley to raise the standard of food hygiene. I have a letter here, which I have received frm the town clerk, and in which he says:
The local Health Department's staff have already done a very considerable amount of work in food premises within the district. They have a very wide local knowledge and are in a better position to administer the whole of the provisions of the Act than officers from outside the area.
The precedent for the figure of 35,000 is in the Justices of the Peace Act, 1949. When that Measure came before the House, the Government of the day proposed a figure which would have robbed the two boroughs which I represent of their justices' bench, and I spoke very severely to the Government about it. I suggested that 35,000 should be accepted,


and was very pleased that the Government agreed.
The boroughs which Parliament has considered capable of having their own justices' bench are capable of administering the Bill. Indeed, I go so far as to say that non-county boroughs with a population between 35,000 and 45,000 are of ideal size for managing their own affairs. They are not too small and not too large. They are small enough to be very well governed and large enough to have an adequate number of capable, public-spirited men and women.
It is true that if the figure of 40,000 were to remain in the Bill, the Minister of Health, on application made to him by a council, could allow a borough with a population of fewer than 40,000 to be a food and drugs authority for the purposes of the Bill, but I want to make sure. I do not want to leave the matter to the whim of any Minister of Health. In order that non-county borough with populations of 35,000 or more should be allowed to manage their own affairs, I ask the Government to accept the Amendment.

Colonel Ralph Clarke: I hope that the Minister of Food will resist the Amendment, because the effect of it would be that any local authority with a population of 35,000 or more would automatically become a food and drugs authority, not only for the purposes of the principal Act, and the Bill, but for other Acts too. I believe that the county councils of this country are quite rightly very much opposed to such action being taken.
It must be remembered that at the present time the whole re-organisation of local government is under consideration. A statement to that effect was made not so long ago by my right hon. Friend the then Minister of Housing and Local Government when we were considering the Luton Bill. It seems to me to be a mistake to commit anybody to a minor change of this sort while such great legislative changes are contemplated. Certain proposals have been put forward by the County Councils' Association, and they are in the possession of the Minister.
That body has stated that whilst the primary responsibility for these matters should be in the hands of the county councils, it agrees to the delegation to non-county boroughs, urban district councils and rural district councils to such an

extent, if any, as may be provided by the delegation schemes. I feel, therefore, that it would be unfortunate as well as unnecessary if the Bill were changed in this way and future arrangements thereby possibly prejudiced.
There are further arguments, but I think they can be presented in a specific case. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) will forgive me if I quote the case of that town. I understand that in 1950 Kettering approached the Northampton County Council with the request that it might support an application to the Minister for powers which are laid down under Section 64 of the Food and Drugs Act, 1938, and which are substantially the same as in Clause 13 of this Bill as now drafted. It wanted to become a food and drugs authority.
The county council refused to give that support. It believed—and I personally feel that it was right—that it would be to the disadvantage of the county as a whole to set up separate organisations which would mean that, for example, two sets of samplers would be working side by side. That would be so because it would be necessary, even if these powers had been granted, for the county council samplers still to be present and to continue their work in the towns in order that they might carry out their responsibilities under the Weights and Measures Act and under the Labelling of Food Order. It obviously would mean two lots of men working on the same job and increasing the cost to the county and to Kettering.
Also, from another point of view the county is responsible for milk sampling, and if that duty had been handed over it would have meant some complication in tracing the origin of these samples back to the farm. While it was the responsibility of the county council the duty was all under one authority and under the same officials. I understand that after receiving that advice the borough council of Kettering did not approach the Minister. Perhaps in a different way it is approaching him now.
There is a third reason why I think this Amendment should be resisted. Anybody who has listened to these debates and appreciates the time that they have occupied will realise what a


highly complex subject this is. A lot of the procedure relating to food and drugs is very complex, and obviously one on which there is a great variety of opinion. It seems to me that it is something which, without any reflection on the administrative capacity of the smaller local authority, is one that the sanitary inspector cannot do as well as a more highly geared and more representative body like the county council, which has a number of persons who can concentrate on the subject and who give their full time to similar matters. There are other reasons, but I will not weary the Committee with them. I hope that the Minister will resist the Amendment.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Mitchison: Those who speak for the parish pump must do so briefly. My Morley is Kettering my Batley is a future Corby. The Minister of Health is a Scot who has come to England and who, no doubt very rightly, has reached a very high position. I hope he is not small-minded on his heights and will not cause Corby, Scots as it is, to look down on Kettering as a place which cannot be and will not be a food and drugs authority.
It seems to me to be a bad plan to have too many authorities which have part of the duties under the food and drugs Regulations, that is to say, the enforcement duties under Section 65 (2) of the 1938 Act but who have no other duties of a food and drugs authority. The position in the area of a local authority which is not a food and drugs authority is that the local authority has to enforce part of the legislation, but as it is a food and drugs authority the county council has to do the rest.
That sort of thing ought to be reduced, and if we take an average between 30,000 or 35,000 and 40,000 we get a type of small town that will do this kind of job thoroughly well. The job is becoming under this Bill, slightly different. As was pointed out in the debate on the previous Amendment, we are imposing a number of additional requirements and rather more detailed requirements in regard to all kinds of food establishments in a town, and while the county council may be highly geared—I do not know exactly what that means—it seems to me extremely difficult for it to do the job

in a number of places where a smaller local authority could rightly and properly do it.
It seems to me better to have the job in the hands of the authority which is the authority concerned with housing, with the condition of houses, and which is dealing with all those other matters which come within the purview of a non-county borough than in the hands of a county council. I have a certain sentimental interest in places of that size but I am not going to talk of that again. This is a matter about which one forms an impression, one keeps it and there is not very much argument one way or the other.
I suggest that the figure of 40,000 is rather too high, that it ought to be reduced. The figure of 35,000 has been put forward on this occasion instead of 30,000, in an appeal to the sporting instincts of the right hon. Gentleman. After all splitting the difference is not too bad, and this Amendment suggests that the difference should be split. Of course, it is not unimportant that Kettering happens to have a population of over 35,000.

Mr. G. A. Pargiter: I hope that some Minister will one day look at the whole of this problem and its allied problems. I can well understand the desire of a small authority to take over as many functions as it reasonably can; it indicates a high civic sense. Nevertheless, there are some difficulties from the practical point of view. I attach importance, in this type of work, to the inspector not being too well known to the people whom he is inspecting, but the smaller the authority is, the more difficult it becomes for the inspector not to be well known to all the shop-keepers in the area.
In the case of many smaller authorities, this is one of the additional functions carried out by sanitary inspectors. They are highly qualified people, and many of them can do the work quite well, but I doubt whether it is practicable when one bears in mind the modern conception of what is required of a sanitary inspector. I consider that the work can be carried out much better by a body which functions over a wide area and can switch inspectors from one district to another rather than that they should operate only within the confines of a small borough or urban district. Weights


and measures duties are carried out by county authorities, and that is a function with which the food and drugs inspection function can be combined.
The problem has been experienced in Middlesex, where the general view is that the function is better regarded as a county one. The importance of having a degree of special qualifications is recognised. The complaints have usually been that the county authority has not reported sufficiently to the county district. If the Minister wants to put some "teeth" into this duty, he should let the county authorities undertake the function but should insist that they satisfy the county districts that it is being properly carried out. That would be better than giving the function to smaller authorities.
I am speaking dispassionately. I am not speaking from a county council point of view, wanting to collect jobs. I am more concerned about efficient and economical administration. The county authority has to appoint a public analyst. If the Amendment were carried, presumably the smaller authority, with the consent of the Minister, could appoint a public analyst. That would be extremely wasteful.
During recent times there has been a considerable change in food packaging methods. To a large extent, articles of food come from large centres and are distributed over wide areas. An inspector working over a large area will find it easier to get at the source of supply than one operating in, say, a borough. That is an additional argument in favour of having the function operated over wide areas. In the old days the shopkeeper bought his goods in bulk and blended them himself, and if the mice got at them it was a local matter, but today when multiple shops and others have spread their operations over much wider areas it is much better that the function should be a county one.
If it is felt that a county authority is not doing the job properly, the Minister should insist that it does it properly. If, however, the county authority is functioning efficiently over a wide area and has appointed highly technical people for the purpose, it is better that it should continue to carry out the function rather than that the function should be given to smaller authorities. I am sorry to disagree with my hon. Friends about this,

but I feel that, on the whole, from the point of view of efficiency, the larger authority is likely to operate better than the smaller authority.

Mr. F. Beswick: There is another Amendment on the Order Paper which refers to the designation of a food and drugs authority. I do not expect that it will be accepted, because I understand that it is not to be called.

The Deputy-Chairman: If the Amendment is not going to be called, it cannot be discussed.

Mr. Beswick: Perhaps I might make a reference to it, Sir Rhys, because it has some bearing on the Amendment which we are now discussing. My Amendment proposed to give a certain amount of discretion——

The Deputy-Chairman: I do not know to which Amendment the hon. Member is referring. We are discussing three Amendments to Clause 13. They are the only ones which can be discussed at this stage.

Mr. Beswick: I appreciate that there are only three Amendments which are being discussed at the moment, Sir Rhys, but I wished briefly to refer to the fact that there is another Amendment on the Order Paper dealing with the same matter. I was making a passing reference to it.

The Deputy-Chairman: There is no other Amendment beyond these three to be taken at this stage.

Mr. Beswick: I understand that the Amendment to which I was referring is not to be called. I was only referring to it in passing, Sir Rhys. I will direct my remarks to the Amendment with which we are now dealing.
My Amendment proposed to give a certain amount of discretion to the Minister when issuing directions under subsection (3). However, the Amendment which has been moved will have relation to the anomaly which it was felt would arise in the County of Middlesex if the powers which the Minister proposes to take under the Bill were used. The power which is required by the right hon. Gentleman to issue a direction in the case of an urban district or non-county district which, though appearing


not to have 20,000 population in the last census figures, nevertheless becomes an area over that size according to the figures of the Registrar-General will, I feel, cover the anomaly which I had in mind in the case of Middlesex. My hon. Friends and I are prepared to accept the words proposed by the Minister as covering the anomaly. I wish to thank the Minister for listening to the argument which we advanced last week and for listening equally carefully to the representations subsequently made.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Iain Macleod): So far during the progress of the Bill I have sat with an air of rapt attention and have not spoken.
An undertaking was given on the Committee stage that I would look carefully into the matters raised by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) and the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick). Illustrations were given of difficulties which existed, or might exist, at Kettering, Corby and Potters Bar, and Batley and Morley have been added this afternoon.
When the hon. and learned Member for Kettering made his latest bid in the auction that he is conducting I was not in the least surprised to find that he picked the figure of 35,000. The only thing that surprised me was that he did not choose the figure of 36,509, which I am told is Kettering's exact population at the moment. Also I have no wish either to depress or strengthen the case of the hon. Member for Batley and Morley (Dr. Broughton), who argued entirely for Morley, saying comfortingly that Batley's population was over 40,000. Actually, in the latest figures of the Registrar General for June, 1953, Batley has also got below the 40,000 mark, so that to that extent, the hon. Member's argument is, no doubt, strengthened.
6.30 p.m.
I am sure the Committee will agree that although these illustrations are interesting, a matter of this importance must be settled by reference to the general proposition. What we are doing in this Bill is nothing new at all. Apart from an alteration in Clause 14 and certain clarifications of the law, we re-enact Section 64 of the 1938 Act, which in this regard will disappear.
It is quite true, and it is a fair point of the hon. and learned Member for Kettering, that there is nothing sacred about the figure of 40,000, or, for that matter, 35,000. But it is also true that when this matter was discussed in 1938, a joint Select Committee of both Houses of Parliament took evidence from the County Councils' Association, the A.M.C., the Urban District Councils' Association, the Ministry and other bodies, and they came to the two conclusions of the 40,000 limit and the 20,000 limit, which I do not think we should lightly upset, and which are subject to various provisos.
I listened, and I am prepared to respond, to what the hon. Member for Southall (Mr. Pargiter) said, that I should look again at this matter. Indeed, I am prepared to do so, but I do say that at this stage of the Bill it would be wrong if we threw over that very careful decision, unless we have evidence—and I have none—that circumstances in that respect have particularly changed since then.
There are one or two points which I should like to make briefly, particularly in response to the hon. and learned Member for Kettering. The hon. Member for Batley and Morley said that he wanted to make sure of having this matter in the Bill, but he would not be making sure because it would be open, as happened in Middlesex, to a direction being made by the Minister of Health.
If we take the case of Kettering, its population has been over 30.000 since 1931, and Kettering has never applied to the Minister of Health for such a direction, although we have been told by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Grinstead (Colonel Clarke) that certain preliminary soundings were taken, so that the door upon Kettering is not shut, if I may put it that way. The position remains as it was before, and, being between 20,000 and 40,000, if Kettering so wishes, it is open to it to apply for such a direction.
The point which appeals to me most related to what was said about Corby and Potters Bar. Using those only as illustrations to consider the wider problem, it seems to me that a wait of 10 years from census to census is too long in the circumstances of today. There are new towns, there are vast out-county estates, and developments are going on in many


areas very quickly. It seems to me unreasonable, therefore, not to try to meet that point if possible.
To take the particular illustration of Potters Bar, which I know well, the merit of the hon. Gentleman's case rests on the fact that the population of Potters Bar is already not far off 20,000 and is growing very rapidly. Large out-county estates at Edmonton and Tottenham have been approved, and only in the last week or so the whole structure of its local government has been altered to take into account its prospective growth. Clearly if Potters Bar had been an urban district with only 7,000 or 8,000, and if it was going to remain so, it could scarcely be a food and drugs authority, whatever anomalies had been detected.
It seemed reasonable, therefore, to see whether I could find a method of reducing this long gap of 10 years, and that is why I shall be putting before the Committee an Amendment—I propose to move it formally soon—standing in the name of my right hon. Friend. That will enable me to take the estimates of the Registrar-General for the mid-year, which are published early in the following year, and, if suitable, give such a direction. I can then anticipate the census, and a direction so given would continue until the next census, notwithstanding any fluctuations in population.
I am sure that will be of some help in at least one or two of the examples that have been given. I should like to emphasise, however, that it is not given in response to individual cases. It is given because, as a result of my study of this matter, I feel that in spite of the blandishments of the hon. and learned Member for Kettering, in the absence of more evidence than we have, and without representations to myself and this House from the leading associations of local authorities and professional bodies involved—to whom we have to give an opportunity to make such representations —I do not think we should upset the two major provisions of the 1938 Act.
I have tried in this Amendment to which I have referred to meet the case of the growing town and the growing area which may well qualify in a short period of time with a population of 20,000 and, therefore, have a right to be considered to be made the subject of a direction.

Therefore, I hope that the hon. and learned Member for Kettering, having most vigorously waved his parish pump, or whatever one does with a parish pump——

Mr. Mitchison: Pump it.

Mr. Macleod: —both in Committee previously, and now, will feel that, on the whole, that is the right course for us to take, and perhaps if he would not press his Amendment the Committee might agree to the Amendment standing in the name of my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Willey: It is proper and appropriate to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on making his maiden speech as a participant in the long discussions that we have had on this Bill. He spoke reasonably, and I should like to express our indebtedness to him for meeting us and discussing this matter. Before I am ruled out of order, I should like to add that I think it a pity that the right hon. Gentleman did not reply to the last debate, because I am sure that he would not have expressed himself with such a flagrant disregard of the facts.
Amendment negatived.
Amendment made: In page 15, line 20, leave out from "thousand," to "shall," in line 26, and insert:
no directions shall be given under subsection (3) of this section that the council of the borough or district shall become the food and drugs authority:
Provided that such directions may be given if it appears from any estimate published by the Registrar General that the population is for the time being more than twenty thousand and the Minister of Health thinks it expedient that the council should become the food and drugs authority in advance of the next census.
(5) Where immediately before the publication of any census the council of a non-county borough or urban district were the food and drugs authority for the borough or district (otherwise than in pursuance of directions given by the Minister of Health after the taking of the census and by virtue only of the proviso to the last foregoing subsection) and the population of the borough or district is shown by the census to be less than twenty thousand—

(a) the council shall cease to be the food and drugs authority, and
(b) any directions in force under subsection (3) of this section in respect of the borough or district."—[Mr. Iain Macleod.]
Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — New Clause.—(FOOD HYGIENE ADVISORY COUNCIL.)

(1) There shall be constituted a Council, to be called the Food Hygiene Advisory Council, which shall consist of a chairman appointed by the Ministers and such number of other members so appointed as the Ministers may determine.

(2) The members of the said Council so appointed shall include—

(a) persons appearing to the Ministers to be qualified to represent the interests of the public generally in relation to matters of food hygiene and related matters,
(b) persons appearing to the Ministers to be representative of persons carrying on any of the classes of trade or business affected by the operation in relation to food of the Food and Drugs Acts, 1938 to 1954, and
(c) persons appearing to the Ministers to be representative of workers employed in any of the said classes of trade or business;
and the terms of their appointment shall be such as the Ministers may determine.

(3) The Ministers or either of them may from time to time refer to the said Council for consideration or advice such questions as they think fit, being questions relating to the Food and Drugs Acts, 1938 to 1954, as they apply in relation to food.

(4) Without prejudice to the last foregoing subsection, where the Ministers propose to make—

(a) any regulations under section five (labelling, marking, and advertising of food), section six (food hygiene), or section ten (licensing of vehicles, etc.) of this Act, or
(b) any order under section nine of this Act (extension of registration),
they shall (unless it appears to them to be inexpedient to do so having regard to the urgency of the matter) refer the proposals in the form of draft regulations or a draft order, or otherwise, to the Food Hygiene Advisory Council for consideration and advice.

(5) The Minister may, out of moneys provided by Parliament, pay to the chairman and other members of the Food Hygiene Advisory Council, and to persons attending meetings at the request of the Council, such allowances as he may, with the approval of the Treasury, determine in respect of travelling and subsistence expenses and in respect of other expenses (if any) necessarily incurred by them for the purpose of enabling them to discharge their functions as members of the Council.

(6) Nothing in this section shall be taken as prejudicing the effect of subsection (4) of section ninety-two of the principal Act.—[Mr. Amory.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Minister of Food (Mr. Heathcoat Amory): I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Clause implements the undertaking that I gave in Committee, as a

result of the Amendments put down on both sides of the Committee, for some kind of a council, to advise the Ministers in matters of food hygiene and so on. I think that the kind of council we are suggesting here should prove very useful and suitable. It is to consist of a chairman and members appointed by the Ministers, those members being representative of the employers and the workers in the food trades and of the public at large. The Clause will empower Ministers to put to the council, for advice, such matters as they think fit, and it requires Ministers to put to the council draft regulations dealing with labelling, hygiene, any orders extending registration, and the licensing of street traders.
The point I want to stress is that it is not intended that this council shall in any way interfere with direct consultations with the trade on technical trade matters, which consultations go on at present as they have gone on in the past. Those consultations will go on exactly as heretofore; this will be something additional. I think that it will prove to be a useful and proper body, and I hope that hon. Members opposite will feel that it will implement fairly satisfactorily the wishes they expressed at an earlier stage.

Mr. Willey: We are now reaching the more amicable part of our discussions, and I can say at once on behalf of my hon. and right hon. Friends that we accept this as an improvement upon the proposed new Clause which we put down. It will be an advantage to bring in the representatives of the public. It is not necessary for me to say more than that we accept this body and hope that it will play a very important part in the administration of the Bill. I accept what the right hon. Gentleman said about direct consultation, save to add that I believe that the council will in fact be able to have better consultation. It certainly will not impair it.
The right hon. Gentleman did not mention the question of research. We raised that matter at an earlier stage, but we accepted the undertaking which he then gave that he would make a special study of research as it affected the food trades, and we are therefore not disappointed that there is no reference to it in the new Clause. We accept it, as I say, as being an improvement upon the proposals we made.

Captain J. A. L. Duncan: My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Vaughan-Morgan) also raised this question, and on his behalf and on behalf of those who agree with him, I thank the Minister for moving the new Clause. I think it is an advance, and it may well be a very useful example which will help to deal with the education of traders and public alike in questions dealing with food hygiene. This matter is so complicated and has so many ramifications that this gathering together of knowledge and experience may well be of great use.
There are, however, two questions which I should like to raise. A word of warning should be given about the danger of overlapping with existing committees, institutes and so on. For instance, if this body is going to deal with the question of pure food as well as food hygiene, we must remember that the Food Standards Committee now deals with that matter and is in close touch with the Medical Research Council, the Agricultural Research Council and other associations which deal with the food industry. If this council overlaps the Food Standards Committee it will be a disadvantage. I hope that my right hon. Friend will try to draw up terms of reference which will avoid that overlapping.
The Clause says that:
The Ministers or either of them may from time to time refer to the said Council
certain things. Later, it says:
Without prejudice to the last foregoing subsection … they shall … refer
certain specific things to the council. That is all right as far as it goes, but is there to be a two-way traffic in this matter? Is the council required to go into certain questions in advance of the Ministers? I am referring not so much to research as to new processes and practices. Such a procedure might well be thought to be of use, although perhaps not usual in councils or committees of this kind. In the case of certain other advisory committees there is only a one-way traffic, but in this case careful consideration should be given to the question whether there should not be a two-way traffic. The council might advise the Minister on its own, as well as doing so when he wants advice. Having mentioned those two points, I welcome the new Clause.

6.45 p.m.

Sir Leslie Plummer: I welcome the new Clause, but I urge upon the Minister and his right hon. Friend that when they choose the men and women who are to constitute this council, they should pay special attention to biochemists and the scientific officers in the food industry who have done so much in the last two or three decades to improve the standards of cleanliness and hygiene under which so many of our foods, especially packaged foods, are produced.
These people work with a scientific integrity in trying to raise the standards of the foods produced by the firms for whom they work. They have a special knowledge and a fine objectivity which could very properly be used by such a body as the proposed advisory council. In their long association with industry they have learned what can and cannot be done and what ought and ought not to be done, and it would be a pity if their attributes and great skill were not so used by the council. I am certain that these biochemists and scientific officers would be only too ready to give their services and advice to the Council and the Ministers concerned.

Dr. Broughton: I rise for one moment only to seek the assurance of the Minister that the Food Hygiene Advisory Council will pay close attention to the matter of the education of food handlers. The long discussions which we have had on the Bill have shown that hon. Members on both sides regard this legislation as important and necessary in order to raise the standard of hygiene in food establishments, but I believe that the education of food handlers is even more important. I am convinced that that education can be beneficial only if it is offered and undertaken on a purely voluntary basis. I regard this matter of voluntary education of food handlers as of such great importance that I should like the Minister's firm assurance that this Council is going to pay very dose attention to it.

Mr. Amory: It seems to me that what my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Captain Duncan) and the hon. Member for Batley and Morley (Dr. Broughton) said was very much to the point. When we come to the question


of fixing the terms of reference of the council, I shall certainly bear in mind the questions which they have raised.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be added to the Bill." —[Mr. Amory.]

Dr. Broughton: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Clause, in subsection (4), after "(extension of registration)," to insert:
or to publish any such code of practice as is mentioned in subsection (6) of section six of this Act.
In our early discussions I moved an Amendment asking the Minister to include in the Bill the mention of a code of practice. We on this side have accepted the arguments put forward on Second Reading about the need of a code of practice and consider it is an important matter. The Minister said then, when I mentioned it, that he would give my suggestion further consideration. He was not then quite sure whether the code of practice should be laid down by him or by an outside body. However, whether the code is to be drawn up by the Minister or by an outside body I hope that this Amendment may be accepted.

Mr. Amory: The hon. Member for Batley and Morley (Dr. Broughton) has thought of something that, I own, I had forgotten. It seems to me to be a very useful provision. I think it is appropriate that the code of practice should be referred to this council, and I gladly accept the hon. Gentleman's Amendment, thanking him for calling my attention to this matter.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended (in Committee and on recommittal), considered.

Orders of the Day — New Clause.—(COMMENCEMENT OF PROCEEDINGS.)

For paragraph (a) of the proviso to subsection (1) of section eighty of the principal Act (which provides a time-limit for prosecution in certain cases) there shall be substituted the following paragraph:

"(a) where a sample has been procured under this Act, no prosecution in respect of the article or substance shall be begun after the expiration of—

(i) in the case of a sample of milk, twenty-eight days,
(ii) in any other case, two months,

beginning with the date on which the sample was procured, unless the justice of the peace before whom the information is laid, on being satisfied on oath that having regard to the circumstances of the particular case it was not practicable to lay the information at an earlier date, gives a certificate to that effect; and, if the prosecution is in respect of a sample of milk, it shall not in any case be begun after the expiration of forty-two days beginning with the said date."—[Dr. Hill.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Dr. Hill: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
On Second Reading, in response to the hon. Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) I accepted the principle that however desirable it might be to extend the interval between the taking of the sample and the commencement of proceedings in respect of other substances, it was not so necessary in the case of milk. This new Clause, which is to take the place of Clause 24, meets the point which the hon. Gentleman made, which we are glad to accept.

Sir L. Plummer: We are very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his consideration of this matter. I am sure that the new Clause will relieve the milk producer and the milk distributor of a great deal of anxiety. I do not want to go over the ground all over again. The hon. Gentleman has made it quite clear that milk, which is perishable in three or four days, should be treated quite differently from other foods not in that category. I am convinced that the new Clause meets the point I put on the previous occasion.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Orders of the Day — New Clause.—(CREAM SUBSTITUTES)

1.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, no person shall sell, or offer or expose for sale, for human consumption—

(a) any substance which resembles cream in appearance, but is not cream; or
(b) any article of food containing such a substance,
under a description or designation which includes the word "cream (whether or not as part of a composite word).

(2) The foregoing subsection shall not apply to the sale, or offer or exposure for sale, of any substance being reconstituted or imitation cream as defined by this section, or of any article containing such a substance, under a description or designation which identifies the substance as such, or to the sale, or offer or exposure for sale. of any substance under a


description or designation which indicates that the substance is not for use as, or as a substitute for, cream.

(3) In this section "reconstituted cream" means a substance which, not being cream, resembles cream in appearance and contains no ingredient not derived from milk, except—

(a) water; or
(b) ingredients (not added fraudulently to increase bulk, weight or measure, or conceal inferior quality) which may lawfully be contained in a substance sold for human consumption as cream;
and "imitation cream" means a substance which, not being cream or reconstituted cream, resembles cream in appearance and is produced by emulsifying edible oils or fats with water, with or without other substances not prohibited by regulations made for the purposes of this section under section three of this Act, or added in quantities so prohibited.

(4) For the purposes of this section, the description or designation under which a substance or article is sold, or offered or exposed for sale, shall be deemed to include the word "cream" if it includes any other word (composite or otherwise) which is calculated to lead a purchaser to suppose that the substance is or, as the case may be, the article contains either cream or a substance for use as cream.

(5) A person who contravenes subsection (1) of this section shall be guilty of an offence.

(6) It shall be the duty of every food and drugs authority within their area to carry into execution and to enforce the provisions of this section.

(7) Section twenty-nine of the 1950 Act shall cease to have effect.—[Dr. Hill.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Dr. Hill: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
In Committee the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) pleaded for a re-examination and rewriting of the Clause dealing with cream substitutes. We were glad to do so because of a number of defects in it with which I need not weary the House now. This new Clause does three things. It ensures that the word "cream," whether appearing alone or as part of another word, and even if spelt differently, shall not be used unless that substance is cream or reconstituted cream or imitation cream, as defined in the Clause.
Secondly it ensures that where the substance is either reconstituted cream or imitation cream it shall be so described. Thirdly, this applies not only to cream when sold as cream but to cream when it is sold with another substance as part of a composite article, when that substance resembles cream—as when used with strawberries and cream.
The purpose is to secure that "cream" means cream and that where imitation cream or reconstituted cream are used they shall be so described. The substance, the food, although described by words including "cream," such as "cream of tomato" or "cream cracker," is not affected if it does not resemble cream.

Dr. Barnett Stross: I am sure we are indebted to the right hon. Gentleman and the Parliamentary Secretary, not only for having kept their word but for having kept it so very well indeed. It must have been very difficult, finding a form of words to make it obviously a tedious job for anyone wishing to do so to deceive the public. With this new Clause as it is, I think we may rest assured that, as far as words can do anything, the public will be protected, and I am sure that we are very grateful to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Somerville Hastings: I am afraid that I did not come into the Chamber in time to hear all the Minister's speech, and so I would ask him whether this new Clause applies to ice cream or at any rate cream of tartar.

Dr. Hill: Not in either case, because those substances do not physically resemble cream.

Dr. Stross: May we have it on record that "Bristol Cream" is for ever safe?

Dr. Hill: I am not familiar with the appearance of that fluid, but if it does not resemble ordinary cream in appearance it is not covered.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be added to the Bill" —[Dr. Hill.]

Mr. Michael Higgs: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Clause in subsection (1), to leave out
or
b) any article of food containing such a substance.
The purpose of this Amendment is to deal with the sort of queries which hon. Gentlemen opposite have just been putting, and to make sure that subsection (1, b) does not do anything we would not wish to do. I have no quarrel with the first part of the new Clause, which deals with cream as such, cream that is sold


in bottles as cream. I would support it wholeheartedly. I am, however, a little anxious about the effect of the new Clause in relation to articles of food which contain cream.
Let us try to read subsection (1) in a straightforward way, althought that is an almost impossible way to read any part of any Bill. It would read something like this: "No person shall sell any article of food containing a substance which looks like cream in appearance but is not cream, under a name which includes the word 'cream'."
7.0 p.m.
A number of things have already become associated in the public mind with the word "cream," and I want to know whether the sale of those products under the name of "cream" will be a criminal offence. The House must remember that we are now dealing not with a Clause which enables the Minister to make regulations but with the operative words themselves. We cannot later alter them, except by amending legislation.
I believe that hon. Members who have shown an interest in Bristol Cream Sherry or Highland Cream Whisky can rest secure in the knowledge that these things do not look like cream, but I have a little more doubt about the cream cracker biscuit, because presumably such a biscuit is made by mixing something and then cooking it; and after it has been mixed but before it has been cooked, it must look very much like cream. It is sold under the name of "cream," but it is not cream. I should have thought that a cream cracker biscuit which contained a mixture originally, perhaps, something rather like cream, might possibly be the cause of an offence against this Clause.
I am not so worried about that, however, as about such things as custard cream biscuits. They have a sandwich content and there is something in the sandwich which looks like cream. What about them? Surely we do not intend to, compel people to say, when they sell such a biscuit, "custard reconstituted cream biscuit," or "custard cream substitute artificial biscuit." Some horrible expressions might arise.
I may be told that if we buy such a biscuit from a good shop, the content in the middle of the sandwich will be solid

and not liquid and, therefore, will not look like cream, but what about cream buns? Hon. Members must be familiar with this delightful confection which contains something which resembles cream. In some cases, if we pay a lot of money for it, then it will contain real cream; but, normally, if we go to a shop and ask for a cream bun or a cream slice we do not imagine, in the majority of cases, that we are getting dairy cream in the middle of the bun. Have we to call it a "reconstituted cream bun" or an "artificial cream slice"?
This House will not make the decision as to whether an article is offending against the law or not; that will be decided by the courts of law. The matter ought, therefore, to be made quite clear before we part company with this Clause. Salad cream is an article which everybody knows. Nobody expects salad cream to be cream when he buys it, but it looks like cream, and if the word "cream" is used in connection with it, then it seems to me that under the Clause an offence would be committed and we should have to think of some other name for salad cream in the future. If the House is to compel everybody who calls salad cream by that name to use another name in future, I think they should be told so before we pass the Clause.
I could mention a number of other items, such as cream milk chocolates or chocolate creams, as they are sometimes called. Nobody imagines that pure cream and nothing else is inside them. Consider "Kreemy Toffees"; I think the Clause would catch them. I do not know whether cream of tomato soup comes within the scope of the Clause. Nobody expects these commodities to contain pure cream and nothing else, and I think we should be told how they are affected by the new Clause.
The purchaser knows perfectly well, when he asks for salad cream, that he will get not cream but something quite different; and surely we could leave the matter to Section 3 of the 1938 Act. The dividing line between guilt and innocence under that Section is what the customer himself expected when the word "cream" was used. If he expects to get cream, then it is already an offence under that Act if he does not get cream, and he is protected. If he does not expect cream, then it is not an offence under that Act


and this Clause ought not to catch that case, either.
We seem to be getting an awful lot of words meaning "something like cream"; we have cream itself, cream substitute, artificial cream, reconstituted cream and imitation cream, and we have seen the words "synthetic cream" on the Order Paper. There are an awful lot of ways of getting tummy ache.

Mr. I. J. Pitman: I beg to second the Amendment.
I will give the further example of "cream rice," which I understand is sold in great quantities, sometimes in tins. I believe it is made with nothing other than rice and milk.
I have had considerable experience of the great difficulties in seeking even minor changes in the written language, but the difficulties there are nothing compared with the difficulties of changing the spoken language. If members of the public are accustomed to using certain designations, it is hopeless for us to expect that, as a result of our passing an Act of Parliament, they will alter those designations. If they use those designations it will be wrong for the House to seek to make the sale of a commodity, in response to such a demand, an illegal action. I hope that the Minister will meet us on the Amendment.

Dr. Hill: In dealing with substances which resemble cream, there are some important words in the last few lines of subsection (2). The Clause does not apply
to the sale, or offer or exposure for sale, of any substance … under a description or designation which … indicates that the substance is not for use as, or as a substitute for, cream.
There are two criteria to apply to the substance which is not cream in the full sense; first, whether it resembles cream, and secondly, the qualification which I just read.
Let us apply those criteria to the various examples given. Everything depends on the example in question, but I should have thought that, in general, the cream cracker and the custard cream would not be regarded as containing a substance which resembles cream or a substance which was not covered by the proviso which I have just read. The

cream bun, yes; let us be frank about it. It may be a bun which has as an obvious element, a substance resembling cream and the bun is described as a cream bun. It will have to be made plain, where such a substance is sold or offered for sale or exposed for sale, that the cream is cream or reconstituted cream or imitation cream.
It is agreed that it is desirable to take this action, in general, and if we admit that, then it is extremely difficult to exclude such articles as cream buns where the substance resembles cream very closely. Salad cream would be excluded, quite clearly, by the words which I read out. The description "cream of tomato soup" could surely be regarded as one which does not suggest that it is a substitute for cream. The same applies to cream of rice and cream of tartar.
I should be lacking in candour if I did not say that in the case of a cream bun or strawberries and cream there is a requirement to make it plain to the intending purchaser whether it is real cream or imitation cream or reconstituted cream.

Mr. Higgs: Will the Minister agree that not only must that be made clear in such words as "these buns contain artificial cream or substitute cream or reconstituted cream," but the buns must be sold under such a designation; they must be called, for example, "reconstituted cream buns."

Dr. Hill: That is a matter for the courts to decide. If these delicacies are unlabelled in the window, it might be sufficient if a notice appeared stating, "the cream in this establishment is reconstituted cream or imitation cream." That will be for the courts to interpret. The purpose of this Clause is to secure that, in fact, the substance in question is accurately described under one of the three headings.
This problem arose in the beginning through margarine being described as butter. Names resembling those applied to butter were used to describe it. In France they began to use quite a different word, and there has grown up the clear distinction between the terms butter and margarine. That may well happen in these cases, and there may come into use a word which implies that a substance has no resemblance to cream in any way.

Mr. Higgs: I think that the discussion on this Amendment has served its purpose, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Mitchison: That is vanishing cream.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause added to the Bill.

Orders of the Day — New Clause.—(BUTTER FAT CONTENT OF MILK)

As soon as the Minister of Health, the Minister of Food and the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries are satisfied that it has become practicable, they shall by joint order prohibit the sale for human consumption of milk with less than three per cent. butter fat or such other higher percentage as they may from time to time by joint order prescribe.—[Mr. Pargiter.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Pargiter: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I am sure that the House will have general sympathy with the purpose of this Clause. There are two reasons for this and the following Clause—Construction of s. 3 of principal Act. The first is on the question of public health, it being generally accepted as being desirable that the standard of the content of fat of milk shall be raised; and the second is that the food and drugs authority may carry out their duties under Section 3 of the principal Act of enforcing prohibition against the sale of milk not of the nature, substance or quality demanded.
With regard to the question of the quality of milk and raising the standard of milk, I quote the Working Party's Report, 1953, on Quality Milk Production in which they came to the conclusion that milk of poor compositional quality is still being produced throughout the year by too many producers; and that there is no cause to be satisfied with the present level of milk quality in England and Wales and every reason for taking steps to improve it.
Unfortunately, the working party failed to indicate ways and means by which the standard could be raised. It went on to give many reasons and excuses why the standard was not higher. That may be understandable because the working party consisted, I think, of representatives of producers and distributors with

no representatives of either health authorities or consumers on it. So we may be excused if we think that perhaps their failure to present any positive indication of action was due to the fact that certain other interests which might have been concerned with that side were not represented.
I do not say that I want to see 3 per cent. as a fixed standard for all time. Quite frankly, I think that the standard should be more than 3 per cent. It is already established that, generally speaking, when milk is bulked the standard is usually higher than 3 per cent. The difficulty that arises is that farmers and producers keep to the 3 per cent. standard. They have had the excuse in the past that if they can prove that milk is as the cow gave it, no matter how much it may be below 3 per cent., prosecutions will fail, and prosecutions have failed on those grounds.
In one case, it was established that a farmer milked his cow but did not completely milk it. I understand that fore-milk, although I am not a technician on this matter—is that which is likely to be deficient so far as fat is concerned. He took the fore part of the milk out and left the other in the cow, and the excuse was that he left it there for the benefit of the calf. The prosecution failed although the farmer must have known that he was producing milk with less than 3 per cent. butter fat. The prosecution failed because the milk was as the cow gave it. There have been other instances of this kind, notwithstanding the fact that butter fat content has been as low as 2·75 per cent.— ·25 per cent. below the 3 per cent. standard.
7.15 p.m.
It is said that the 3 per cent. standard would mean that at some time of the year there would be a shortage of milk. I do not think that is a very good excuse when we want to bring the standard up to 3 per cent. It becomes a question of proper feeding and proper marketing, and unless some positive action is taken people who are careless in this matter will always have the advantage over the good farmer who is particularly careful to see that he gets a yield of good quality milk.
I am sure that it would be the desire of the Minister and of this House to support those farmers and producers who are


producing milk of the highest quality and to condemn those people who are consistently producing the milk of low quality. I hope that for those reasons the Minister will consider the possibility of taking some action on these lines.
There are a good many other reasons which may be introduced. I mentioned the case of a farmer who deliberately left the richer part of the milk in the cow. There have been other cases where the milk has been deficient in content, and in all these cases once it has been established that it is as the cow gave it, the prosecutions have failed. I hope that the Minister will do something to strengthen this position.
In this matter we are somewhat backward. We claim to be very progressive in certain matters, but we are far behind the United States in this matter. In the United States, they have laid down in the Model Milk Ordinance, which was issued in 1939 by the Health Service of the Federal Security Agency, a description of milk and what its solid non-fat content should be, and they fixed the milk fat content at 3¼ per cent. This ordinance is not applicable to the whole of the United States, but it has been accepted by many of the States on a Statewide basis and many communities have adopted it. The ordinance covers some 60 million population of America. If that can be done for 60 million people of America, it ought not to be impossible for us to do that with our smaller population, and with the greater degree of control of milk production which can be established in this country.
Even in Scotland they are far ahead of England in this matter. The requirement of the Milk Marketing Board in Scotland is that the butter fat content shall be 3·4 per cent. in summer and 3·5 per cent. in winter, which indicates that Scotland is giving England a lead in this matter. It is appreciated that there may be difficulties in enforcing a standard of this kind immediately. It is a matter which would probably have to be taken in stages.
The Ministers would have the sanctions contained in the Clause and it would be at the discretion of the joint Ministers as to when the standard should be imposed. People here who were producing poor quality milk could be given an opportunity of doing something about it, and a date could be fixed, after an examination

of all the factories, so that there could be no question of a shortage of milk at any time. This could be left to the discretion of the Ministers. I think that if this were done at some time, it would be in the interests of the people of this country.

Mr. Hastings: Does this proposed new Clause make it illegal for a farmer to sell skimmed milk, if it is ordered medicinally?

Mr. Pargiter: I do not know. I will leave it to the Minister to make the necessary safeguards with regard to skimmed milk. Skimmed may now be sold if it is described as skimmed milk, and if it is described as skimmed milk it would not be covered by this new Clause, which relates to milk containing butter fat.

Sir L. Plummer: I beg to second the Motion.

Dr. Summerskill: I hope that the Minister will accept the new Clause. People are under the impression that we in this country drink the maximum amount of milk and that the quality is the best obtainable. That is not so, and I think that a provision of this nature is desirable. I ask the Minister to observe that my hon. Friend has worded the new Clause in such a way that there is full protection in the phrase:
… are satisfied that it has become practicable …
Therefore, there will be no great pressure upon the Minister now. The only point that I did not understand in my hon. Friend's argument was when he said that some farmers are blamed for leaving the best part of the milk in the cow. As a doctor, I have never been able to understand how one can discover if the best part of the milk is left behind.

Mr. Pargiter: Milk comes as what is called "fore-milk," and then there is the full milk. It is the fore-milk which is likely to be deficient in fat content. When a cow is completely milked then the milk has the full fat content. It is legal to sell fore-milk. As long as one can prove that it was sold as it came from the cow that is a good defence.

Mr. Amory: Under existing regulations, it is made a presumption that if milk contains less than 3 per cent. butter fat or 8·5 per cent. other solids it shall be


deemed to be adulterated until the contrary is proved. The new Clause would convert that presumed standard into a fixed standard.
The provision is right in line with our general aims. We want to bring about the kind of general improvement in milk to which the hon. Gentleman referred. From that point of view I have no objection to the proposal, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press me to accept it now because, in the state in which it is put forward, it would not fit into the Bill. There are three reasons for that. First, there is a reference to butter fat but no reference to the other solids. Secondly, no penalties are provided for. Thirdly, there is no Parliamentary control in connection with the order which is mentioned.
These three drawbacks mean that at this stage in the proceedings I could not possibly accept the new Clause. If the hon. Gentleman had introduced it a good deal earlier, we might have discussed the matter and seen whether there was any form in which it could have been accepted.

Mr. Pargiter: It is unfortunate that in another place it was designed to do something like this but apparently the Government were not then so forthcoming as the Minister is now. It is a pity that this did not happen in another place. In the circumstances, the arguments adduced are pretty powerful, although they are not aimed against what the new Clause tries to do. Will the Minister undertake to look at the problem with a view to introducing some enforcing regulations which cannot be so easily avoided as the present regulations? If he will do that, I will withdraw the Motion.

Mr. Amory: I will look into the position. I will consider the present regulations and see if anything should be done.

Mr. Pargiter: Will the Minister look at the point that it is a good defence to argue that the milk was sold in the condition in which it came from the cow?

Mr. Amory: I will look at that. In reference to the second new Clause in the name of the hon. Gentleman, it seems to me that that is the kind of case where it ought to be left to the court to decide——

Sir L. Plummer: On a point of order. Has my hon. Friend moved the new second Clause? I thought that we were discussing the first new Clause in his name.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman could not move the second new Clause, because it has not been selected.

Mr. Pargiter: In view of what the Minister has said, I have no option but to leave the matter in the sympathetic hands of the Minister. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — Clause 2.—(DEFENCES AVAILABLE IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER S. 3 OF PRINCIPAL ACT.)

Mr. Mitchison: I beg to move, in page 2, line 22, to leave out Clause 2.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps it would be convenient to discuss at the same time the next Amendment in the name of the hon. and learned Gentleman:
In page 2, line 41, at end, insert:
(3) Proceedings shall not be taken under section three of the principal Act in respect of such a breach of condition as is mentioned in sections twenty-five and twenty-six of the Food and Drugs (Milk, Dairies and Artificial Cream) Act, 1950.

Mr. Mitchison: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The discussion can be brief. This was a rather complicated point raised at an earlier stage and the Parliamentary Secretary sent to me a full explanation of his reasons for being unable to accept the second Amendment. I agree with his reasons. I believe that he proposes to say what those reasons are, and if he will do that I give him the opportunity now.

Mr. G. Darling: I beg to second the Amendment.

Dr. Hill: We are now dealing with the case where an offence under the 1950 Act is dealt with, or required to be dealt with, under Section 3 of the 1938 Act, if it is covered by that section. I will not—and the hon. and learned Gentleman knows why—weary the House with the extensive arguments that I put in my letter to him, but I will give what I think is the essence of them.
There is an offence in the case we are now examining under Section 3 of the


1938 Act. There it is alleged that there has been sold to the prejudice of the purchaser a food or drug not of the nature, quality or substance demanded. In this case it is something that arises out of a breach of the conditions set out in the Fourth Schedule of the 1950 Act. It is argued that when there is a breach of the 1950 Act and that breach also falls within Section 3 of the 1938 Act, the former should be used.
Our attitude is that we would find very great difficulty in saying, in respect of an offence alleged to come within Section 3, that in one case Section 3 should be used and in another it should not. The Section of the 1950 Act refers to specified areas, and it would mean that a dairyman in one area would be differently treated from a dairyman in another. Dairymen would be treated differently from butchers, grocers or anyone else. We feel that it is essential to sustain the argument that the dairymen, in respect of this matter, should not be treated differently from anyone else.
As the hon. and learned Gentleman will remember, a particular illustration of the difficulty was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Higgs). He said that there might be a breach or a failure to observe the conditions in a pasteurising process—a mere technical fault in a machine that led to the substance not being of the nature, quality and so on demanded. Why should that, he argued, come within Section 3, or be required to come within Section 3, of the Act of 1938? It is also true that, for example, in the butcher's machine for the manufacture of sausages the same would apply.
Though we have considered the matter, as I am sure the hon. and learned Gentleman and my hon. Friend will realise, with the greatest of care, we feel that we must adhere to the position that offences in this category, of selling to the prejudice of the customer something not of the nature, substance or quality demanded, should be dealt with under Section 3, despite the difficulties that it creates in the case of the specified area.

Mr. Mitchison: I have given the hon. Gentleman an opportunity of putting himself right, not only with me but with

the rather puzzled dairymen. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — Clause 4.—(POWER OF MINISTERS TO OBTAIN PARTICULARS OF CERTAIN FOOD INGREDIENTS.)

7.30 p.m.

Dr. Hill: I beg to move, in page 4, line 17, after "importation," to insert "or use."
I believe it was the bon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) to whom I gave an assurance that, in this matter of gathering information, we would take power to obtain information from those-who use, as well as those who manufacture. I feel he made a good point that there might be knowledge gained in use which the Minister might wish to have, and this Amendment is to give expression to the undertaking I gave.

Mr. Willey: I rise only to thank the Parliamentary Secretary for meeting us on this point. He promised to look into it and has obviously been convinced that the point we made was valid.

Amendment agreed to.

Dr. Hill: I beg to move, in page 4, line 18, to leave out from "order," to "to," in line 21.
In the discussion on Clause 4, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) drew attention to the way in which we were unnecessarily restricting the field from which we might draw information. He suggested the omission of certain qualifying words. We felt that in practice all the words might profitably go, and this Amendment is intended fully to meet the assurance which we gave.

Mr. Mitchison: I am much obliged. We are always very glad on this side of the House to help the hon. Gentleman to improve a good Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Clause 5.—(LABELLNG, ETC., OF FOOD AND DRUGS.)

Mr. Pitman: I beg to move, in page 5, line 39, at the end, to insert:
(3) For the purposes of the said section six no trade mark which on the day this Act is passed is registered under the Trade Marks Act, 1938, in respect of any food or drug, shall be treated as a false description of that food or drug or as being otherwise calculated to mislead as to its nature, substance or quality.


Having just agreed to the new Clause in regard to cream, we have, in principle, got into this Bill two quite different methods of dealing with what could be described as misleading nomenclature. In the case of the substance "cream," alone we have a specific new Clause dealing with it. We have got substances other than cream, however, dealt with in Clause 5.
I take as an example of a substance other than cream the common ocean sponge. We get the situation that describing as cream what is not cream is specifically prohibited. But, on the other hand, there is, as has been explained by the Minister, a specific protection of the use of the word "cream" as a term of art for describing that which in point of fact is not cream but is, say, cream of rice or anything of that kind.
In the case of sponge, however, there is no prohibition of a description as sponge of what is not a true ocean sponge but say a porous rubber substance. Equally, there is no protection for the use of "sponge" as a term of art in something which has no relation whatever to an absorbent thing for washing. For instance, the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), who I see in his place, gave as an example "Mitchison's angels on horseback." I am picking "Pitman's sponge fingers." A sponge finger is notoriously not made of sponge at all and nor is it a finger. Nobody going into a shop and asking for Pitman's sponge fingers would expect to get a man's fingers or a piece of sponge.
Up and down the country a quantity of well established trade marks and trade designations are in use. The various associations for which I speak are particularly anxious there should be a protection for these established trade marks and that there should not be prosecutions under this Bill for what could be technically described as misleading designations because words in the components of those designations are in isolation, not literally true. I think it is better to deal with hypothetical cases like Pitman's sponge fingers, which may easily stand for a well known and long established trade mark.
We could have moved and discussed this Amendment in terms to include, with existing trade marks, also future trade marks of that kind, which were to be

accepted and registered. But, since it was considered that it might be dangerous to open a future door for people to abuse the protection which would be given by this new subsection, it was considered better to give protection only to existing trade marks and to concede the point as regards all future trade marks. It is from that point of view of only existing trade marks that this Amendment is moved.
However, all such existing trade marks have been not really misleading, but only misleading in the sense that they have had ambiguous wording, as in my example of a sponge finger; they have not been actually misleading so as to make people buy something which they did not understand they were buying. There has, moreover, been plenty of time since 1938 to prosecute in such cases, if any, as might be on the border line of being misleading. A trade mark like "Bristol Cream" would be a bad example because it will be the new Clause which will permit that and save it from all dangers of prosecution. Let us take "Milk of Magnesia." Nobody who bought it in the past can have supposed that "Milk of Magnesia" came out of a cow. Do we want to submit to risk of prosecution in the case of milk what we have just protected in the case of cream. Ought we not to protect milk also?
We are then seeking in this Amendment to give protection for these brand names to the legitimate trader—it is an immunity which in practice he has enjoyed for a number of years—and to make it possible for him to rest easy that he will not be prosecuted. We are giving this protection to the man who sells "Bristol Cream." Why cannot we give it to the man who sells "Milk of Magnesia"?

Dr. Stross: Does the hon. Gentleman seriously suggest anyone who sells "bull's eyes" to children, or "cat's tongues" to young girls, or to elderly people for that matter, will get into trouble, or have any difficulty?

Mr. Pitman: That is precisely my point. If that is not the intention of this House, it is just as well we should make it perfectly clear that we have no such intention. In the case of cream we are going to give protection to "Bristol Cream" and cream rice. If we are doing that for cream, ought we not to do it


in the same way for all other comparable cases as well and give to all the existing non-misleading terminologies the protection we are prepared to give under the "cream" heading?

Mr. Higgs: I beg to second the Amendment.

Dr. Hill: What is here suggested is a complete defence in perpetuity for all trade marks against prosecution under Section 6 of the parent Act. Under that Section it is an offence in the wrapper or container falsely to describe the food as being
otherwise calculated to mislead as to its nature, substance or quality …
On what grounds should we argue that because there is an existing trade mark it should never be possible in the future to bring action under Section 6?
My hon. Friend in the course of his argument, agrees that it has not happened and the danger is not a real one. I want to face it on a point of proof. A trade mark under the Trade Marks Act, 1938, does not of itself provide the necessary guarantee. Scrutiny by the Board of Trade of such suggested trade marks is not precisely the same kind of scrutiny as would be needed to make such an exclusion possible. So I would say to my hon. Friend that it would be wrong, merely because a trade mark was in existence today, to exempt such a substance from a Clause which, after all, is only affected if the description is calculated to mislead.
My hon. Friend referred to "angels on horseback." I assume he had in mind any trade mark connected with that product, but nobody would suggest that a person ordering that really expected to find on the mount an angel in protein or in any other form. I suggest we remind ourselves of the general words of the offence, words that have been there since 1938, and that we do not seek to exclude these or any other particular category of substances, because in principle it would be undesirable.

Mr. M. Follick: The Minister is no doubt aware of the advertisement of Beecham's Pills being worth a guinea a box. Would that pass or not?

Dr. Hill: I am not prepared to take upon myself the responsibility of the courts in that matter. The essence is not whether these Beecham's Pills have any

effect on the human body, but whether the description falsely describes or otherwise is calculated to mislead as to the nature, substance or quality of these delicacies. I will leave the hon. Member to judge from his own experience.

Mr. Pitman: In asking the leave of the House to withdraw the Amendment, may I just ask the Minister why he is giving perpetual protection to the word "cream" and denying it to other substances which will be subjected to perpetual risk of prosecution?

Dr. Hill: I can assure my hon. Friend that he misconstrues what is being done in the matter of protection for cream. Now embedded in the statute is a very clear-cut definition. There is no argument that there should be a real insistence on accuracy of description, and this accuracy of description is generally required by Section 6 of the 1938 Act.

Mr. Follick: What about shoe cream?

Mr. Pitman: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Higgs: I beg to move, in page 5, line 45, at the end, to insert:
Provided such regulations shall not apply to food prepared or sold with a view to consumption on the premises.
The purpose of this Amendment is to deal with a point which was raised in Committee and in respect of which my hon. Friend promised to make researches before the Report stage. The point arises on the subsection which gives power to the Minister to make regulations for imposing requirements as to the labelling, marketing or advertising of food. We want to make sure that perhaps by accident no regulation shall inadvertently require the proprietor of a restaurant or café to set forth in detail either on the menu or in a notice in the window a recipe of all the dishes or any of the dishes that will be sold inside.
Where we empower the Minister to make the regulations the operative words are not in the Bill but would be in the regulations, and it may well be that my hon. Friend will tell us that it is impossible to write words into the Bill which will prevent a mistake from happening and that we shall have to trust him, his successors and the House of Commons to watch the point for us.
7.45 p.m.
There are two separate categories of case. The first category is where the public has got hold of a name, accepted it and adopted it with the result that it is so well known that Parliament would be wasting its time to try to legislate it out of existence. No one imagines that Lancashire hotpot comes from Lancashire or that Welsh rarebit comes from Wales. It is no good compelling a cafe proprietor to disclose precisely all these things or to say in his advertisement why they are so known.
But there is the other class of case where the proprietor of a restaurant likes to use fancy names which he invents in order to describe his dishes. Hon. Members who eat in the Members' Dining Room will know that sometimes we have chicken grande mére, which is a contradiction in terms as I understand it. Are we to prevent proprietors from describing things with names of that sort?
A friend of mine was dining out and he was offered as a sweet puits d'amour voilé which, as I understand it, either means a veiled well of love or a well of veiled love. My French is rather restricted so I cannot tell which is correct. I hope that the regulations which may be made under this Clause will not inadvertently prevent such good old-fashioned practices as those which I have described.

Captain Duncan: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. Mitchison: I hope the Minister will not accept this Amendment, because it ought to be a matter for the regulations. Let me give the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Higgs) a very simple instance. We all know the story of the waiter who came round with a dish and, being a Chinaman, found conversation with the person to whom he offered it a little difficult. The person in question turned round and said in a quiet tone of voice, "Quack, quack" and the waiter replied "Bow-wow." Supposing the contents of that pie had been advertised for sale in the window as dog pie, I suggest it would be rather misleading and a proper matter for control under these regulations.

Dr. Hill: Clearly there is a presumption here that the Minister who makes regulations for imposing requirements in

respect of the labelling, marking and advertising of food will show common sense in what he does. I think that is the basis of the answer which I must give to my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Higgs). When he raised the matter before he was anxious about the power to require the disclosure of recipes. I examined the point, taking advice, and I am assured that no power would lie to compel the disclosure of recipes.
As the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) pointed out, the words here are far too wide. In so far as there are descriptive terms applied to any catering establishments or canteens, or whether they be notices in cafeterias or other indications of what the food is, it is right that the same considerations in labelling, marking and describing the food should apply inside and outside. It would be wrong for one consideration to apply to food that was bought and taken home and another to the same food that was bought in some café. I can assure my hon. Friend that recipes are not covered, and I think that I can say here, speaking for both sides of the House, that it is a reasonable presumption that the Minister will act with good sense in this matter of the field that is sought to be covered by legal definition.

Mr. Higgs: With that clear statement from my hon. Friend, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — Clause 6.—(REGULATIONS AS TO FOOD HYGIENE.)

Dr. Hill: I beg to move, in page 6, line 22, after "packaging," to insert "wrapping."
This Amendment has been put down to meet a point made by the right hon. Lady the Member for Fulham, West (Dr. Summerskill) on Second Reading. In order to make clear that "wrapping" is intended, we have accepted the suggestion to add the word.

Dr. Stross: In this matter, as in all the items on which the right hon. Gentleman and the Parliamentary Secretary have been able to meet us, and have thus allowed us to help in making the Bill better, we are very grateful, and have pleasure in saying so.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. James MacColl: I beg to move, in page 6, line 27, after "provision," to insert:
(a) for prohibiting in private dwelling-houses the handling and wrapping by persons residing therein of articles intended for sale for human consumption.
My hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks), in whose name this Amendment appears on the Order Paper, regrets most deeply that he has been called away and is unable to move the Amendment to which he attaches considerable importance. He has asked me to put before the House and the Minister a serious problem which has, I understand, arisen all over the country, and certainly in West London.
It is, apparently, the custom in West London for certain sweet manufacturing firms to send out unpacked sweetmeats to be packed in private houses. Nobody would want to prevent people, very often in humble circumstances, from earning a living, but I think it difficult to imagine anything more unsuited for home work than the packing of sweets. As children are the greatest sweet eaters, any suspicion of dirt getting into them is a very serious matter.
I believe that provision is made in the Factories Acts for such cases to be registered with the local authority and for the sanitary inspector to inspect the building. It is not at all clear what precisely are the powers of the public health authority under the Factories Acts. They have power to inspect the building, and, presumably, if the building is unsuitable they can deal with the matter. But it is much less clear what power they have for dealing with the people actually doing the work.
One can imagine what happens in some of these cases. A contract may be made with, say, the housewife. She may be the person nominally responsible for doing the work, but what in fact often happens is that the whole family sit round the table wrapping the sweets in order to earn an honest penny. Very often some members of the family are children with dirty hands. It is quite possible to inspect the housewife and to find that she is in good health, but there is no guarantee at all that the other members of the family may not have some form of skin disease or some kind of infection which might make it most unsuitable for them to do this work.
This problem has also arisen in the Metropolitan Borough of Paddington of whose council I am a member. We discussed this problem at our last council meeting and on both sides the general feeling was expressed that we needed more power to deal with the matter, and guidance from the Government as to precisely what our powers were for dealing with it. Quite independent of that experience, my hon. Friend the Member for Acton has had a communication from his local authority in precisely the same terms. This seems to prove that it is a growing and increasing danger.
This Amendment seems the most sensible way of tackling the matter. The acceptance of the Amendment would give the Minister authority to make regulations, dealing with the problem as and when he finds it. It is obviously impossible to lay down in detail the precise form that the regulation should take, what restrictions should be made and what type of inspection there should be. In a varying situation like this it would be impossible to do all that by statutory enactment.
What we can do is to empower the Minister to make regulations dealing with the problem so that when he receives, complaints from public health authorities he can deal with them by order and can give guidance to the authorities for the enforcement of these regulations.

Mr. Mitchison: I beg to second the Amendment.
As I read the Bill, the fact that the Minister is given power to prohibit does not oblige him to prohibit in every case. Therefore it would not make much difference if the words "or regulating" were added. If the Minister feels otherwise about that, no doubt he will say so. This seems to be a real point and one which only with difficulty can be brought within the general words of the Clause.
Obviously some funny things are happening in Acton and Paddington, and since, in some respects, Acton and Paddington are good and progressive places, it may be that worse things are happening in some dim dark boroughs about which we have no particular information.

Dr. Hill: I can reassure the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) that the necessary power already resides in Clause 6. Indeed, it is proposed—let us go carefully with these words—to include in the


regulation a form of words to which I will refer in a moment. The difficulty about the proposal in its present form is that the regulations would prohibit the handling of food, wrapping and otherwise, in the living-room behind the country shop. That is done, and, in some circumstances, necessarily done. Secondly—this is quite a small point, but I think the hon. Gentleman will appreciate it—there might be a relation living in the house engaged in this work who would not be covered by this form of words.
With that in mind we are proposing, subject to approval, to use in the regulation the following words:
No person shall wrap any food in a domestic living room unless such food has been prepared at or is sold or intended for sale at the premises of which the living room forms part.

Captain Duncan: I am advised that there is a special problem here, but I am not quite sure that I follow my hon. Friend in the way in which he proposes to deal with it. After all, this Amendment suggests that duly authorised officers should enter private dwelling-houses in Acton and Paddington, or wherever this trade is being carried on.
The penalty is not intended for the man making money out of the manufacture of these sweets, but for the poor individual sitting in his dwelling-house. Under Section 25, he is liable to a fine of £100 or six months' imprisonment. That is a very severe punishment.
Under Section 77 of the 1938 Act, the officers are entitled to enter food premises. How are these offences going to be proved? Is it proposed that under Section 77 these authorised officers shall enter private dwelling-houses in order to ascertain whether the law is being broken and whether an offence is being committed? I think that is a very dangerous situation.
8.0 p.m.
My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will agree with me that in the old days the Englishman's home was his castle and he had the right to refuse entry to anybody. I admit that that has been broken into in certain cases, but it is a right which we ought to preserve to our utmost ability. There may be a special reason for it in Paddington and Acton,

but there are dangers in allowing authorised officers to go into a private dwelling-house for the purpose of finding offences, which are punishable by £100 fine or three months' imprisonment. Surely the right way to deal with this matter is in some way to get at the manufacturers of the sweets, not penalise the servants of the company who may be women working part-time to make a little money on the side.

Dr. H. Morgan: When I was in private practice I saw a great deal of this kind of work being done in people's homes, and for that reason I ask the House to approve the Amendment. We must protect people in some way against the unsupervised preparation and manufacture of food. Harm is not done deliberately, but many of these homes are not clean and many of those who indulge in small attempts at selling food have a very limited knowledge of hygiene and of how food deteriorates in certain conditions.
I have seen in certain homes in London these little attempts at increasing income carried out in conditions under which it would be absolutely impossible to keep the ordinary home tidy and clean. I beg the House to suppress this practice. The Amendment is a very reasonable and necessary protection of the ordinary common person who buys a few articles of food occasionally from people who prepare them at home without any knowledge of food hygiene or of the manufacture of things that are intended for public consumption.

Mr. MacColl: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington (Dr. Morgan) for his support, more especially as he is a neighbour of mine in Lancashire and has shared with me membership of a Metropolitan borough council. In view of the fact that the Minister has met the proposal so generously and has promised in very clear terms that he will deal with the mischief by regulation, I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Acton will approve my response. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Amory: I beg to move, in page 7, line 10, at the end, to insert:
(e) for imposing requirements as to the clothing worn by persons in such premises.


The Amendment is moved in response to an undertaking which we gave at the end of a previous debate on Amendments relating to this subject which were proposed by the hon. Member for Northfield (Mr. Chapman) and hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Padley). I think that it meets the situation.

Mr. Willey: We are much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for meeting us on this point. Some doubt was expressed as to whether it was covered in the Bill. We are happy that the right hon. Gentleman has met us by making explicit provision, serving the additional purpose of calling attention to the fact and giving forewarning that regulations will be made imposing requirements regarding clothing.

Amendment agreed to.

Dr. Stross: I beg to, move, in page 7, line 10, at the end, to insert:
(e) for requiring the medical examination of persons engaged in preparing, handling, wrapping or delivering food where such persons have not previously been so engaged.
The Amendment has some importance. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will agree that it is modestly and properly framed, that it is not the type of Amendment which will give much trouble and that what influence it will have will be a good influence.
The House will remember that we discussed an Amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham, West (Dr. Summerskill) on this subject. Objection was brought against it on the ground that it would mean that a large amount of special clinical work would have to be done, mainly of a bacteriological nature, on a vast number of people. It was held that the machinery would have been overloaded and that it would not have been possible to carry out the work satisfactorily.
When I spoke on that occasion I had in mind what I have put down in the words of the Amendment, namely, that we should examine new entrants and that it should be a simple examination, but one which would remove obvious possible causes of contamination of our food such as might cause food poisoning. There is a draft Food Hygiene Regulation which declares, quite rightly, that no one must work in this industry if he or she suffers from or is a carrier of typhoid, paratyphoid, or other salmo-

nella infection, or dysentery, or staphylococcal infection likely to cause food poisoning, that we expect people to get better before they return to work, and that they must produce a certificate to say that they are free of such infections when they return. What do we do about other matters? We have a suggested code of practice which I suggest imposes an obligation on an employee which he cannot carry out.
It states that:
The proprietor or manager of a food business should, when interviewing applicants for employment, make such enquiries as he reasonably can to ascertain whether the applicant has a satisfactory medical history and whether from the standpoint of apparent personal cleanliness he is otherwise suitable for employment in the food trade. Applicants having suffered from typhoid or paratyphoid fever should not be engaged until medical approval has been given.
That is in the code, but it is not fair. It is the family doctor who should ask such questions of a new applicant. That is why I have worded the Amendment as it stands.
In the case of those who are working, serious illnesses are handled under regulations. All the others are catered for in paragraphs 9 to 12 inclusive in the Code, where there is an obligation on the worker to report every kind of illness from which he or she suffers and an obligation on the employer to make sure that his workpeople are not so suffering or, if they are, to take certain steps.
That is good. We are covered for serious illnesses and minor types of illnesses. The serious illnesses are covered by the regulations and the minor ones by the code for those who are working in the industry, but we leave new entrants without knowing whether they are ill, fit or clean, save that we put into the code the requirement that the employer should take a medical history from his workpeople when he employs them. That is wrong and hardly matches the serious way in which we have been discussing the Bill. Would we strain the medical machine if, under regulations, we suggested that a new entrant must take a medical certificate from the family doctor to say that he or she is fit for employment in food handling? I do not know how many new entrants come into the industry all told, but it is not likely to be more than 30,000 or 60,000 a year.


If the number is 30,000, that means one more examination per doctor per year, and if it be 60,000, two examinations per doctor per year, on an average.
It would be an examination which a family doctor could make very quickly because he has records of his patients and knows them well. The Parliamentary Secretary, with his very great experience, will bear me out on this point. It should not be beyond the wit or ingenuity of his Department, or of the Ministry of Health, to frame a small form for use by the family doctor and new entrants could get this leaflet from the employer to take to their family doctors. That is the kind of thing we have in mind. Obviously people with suppurations from the ears, if pus is running from the ears, would not be suitable for such work until they had been treated and made better. A person with multiple boils, with suppurating acne of a very bad type, suffering from serious infections of a staphylococcal nature, or anyone with ringworm of the nail should not do this work until they had recovered from the infection.
If these simple matters were attended to in the way I have suggested, I think that without any fuss or bother or interference with those working in the industry we could make certain by a simple expedient, that those entering the industry should get treatment. They would be made aware of the conditions from which they are suffering and which renders them unfit.

Dr. Broughton: I beg to second the Amendment.
I wish to draw the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to some evidence in support of our case. The Parliamentary Secretary has made it necessary for me first to deal with some remarks he made earlier. He made the ridiculous accusation that we on the Opposition benches are more concerned with the welfare of the caterers than of the public. Of course that is quite fantastic. We are concerned with the welfare of the public first and foremost, but we have the good sense to realise that in order that the public shall benefit by the measures contained in this Bill there must be cooperation with the caterers. In spite of the remarks of the Parliamentary Secretary——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): This is a little wide of the Amendment.

Dr. Broughton: I was going on to refer to a recommendation made by the caterers prior to the Second Reading of the Bill. These proposed hygiene regulations were compiled and submitted to the Minister before the Second Reading of the Bill and the Federation kindly sent me a copy. My hon. Friends and I noticed that the first recommendation was that:
Persons normally engaged in the handling of food shall not be known carriers of infection, shall be free from infection and be in possession of a personal hygiene certificate issued by a medical officer of health or his deputy.
Having seen that, we put down an Amendment suggesting the medical examination of all people engaged in the handling of food. The Parliamentary Secretary rejected that Amendment, explaining that it would be impossible to have a medical examination of all people handling food because of their large numbers. We saw the wisdom of his argument and withdrew our Amendment. We have considered the matter since then and now we put it forward in this modified form.
After the House has listened to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) putting our case so clearly, the Parliamentary Secretary will be bound to admit that our suggestion is a very reasonable one, which can be brought into operation without very much difficulty.

8.15 p.m.

Dr. Hill: All my experience and instincts, like those of the hon. Member for Batley and Morley (Dr. Broughton), are in favour of medical examination where that is appropriate. But we must ask ourselves what is likely to be gained in terms of protection of the public. I hesitate to refer to the working party that has been referred to, but it examined this matter and stated:
A medical examination without detailed or repeated bacteriological examinations gives no protection but merely a false feeling of security.
If, as the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) fairly did, we set aside more serious conditions dealt with in the Public Health Regulations and the proposed regulations and asked


what the examining doctor is likely to gain from the simple examination described by the hon. Member, what would be the result? It might well be that he would discover an apparent infectious condition of the kind illustrated. On the other hand, it is much more likely that the man would be perfectly fit and would get that sense of security which comes from having a certificate. Subsequently he may get an infection of one kind or another which, while the infection was on him, would render it undesirable that he should be so employed.

Dr. Morgan: He might be a carrier.

Dr. Hill: I am coming to that. If scrutiny on one occasion by his medical practitioner is to yield information of merit—let us face the fact—perhaps the only kind of scrutiny which will be of real value will be that in search of the carrier. I will not describe the lurid details, but the hon. Member may take it that it involves the most complicated, extensive and prolonged investigation. The argument for a simple medical examination brings me to the conclusion that it would be of relatively little value in protecting the public against those conditions which are the commonest source of danger—the common cold, infected skin and the like. It would give a sense of security quite unwarranted by the facts.
A further point, which is more for others than for myself, is that a man otherwise acceptable for the post might be rejected on a ground quite irrelevant to his future employment. I do not want to see this kind of medical examination being used to determine whether a man should or should not be accepted for employment. That is another field of inquiry. But do not let us have an examination which would do little to provide security for the public and which might promote an entirely false sense of security.

Mr. G. Darling: I wonder if the Parliamentary Secretary would be prepared to look at this matter again, not perhaps in this form? He appears to me to have overstated the case when referring to the difficulties of a medical examination when a person is seeking a job. It is done on the railways and in quite a number of industries, although I admit that such

examination is not so thorough as would be required in this case.
My point is perhaps a matter of arithmetic. I am not a medical man and I may be completely wrong; but as I see it, there are one or two diseases which may be contracted by people employed in the food trade, such as tuberculosis for example, and it would be wrong for them to handle certain types of food. That would not apply in the case of fruit and vegetables but I had in mind such things as cooked foods. Perhaps it might be arranged that a periodical examination be made to weed out people suffering from an infection or disease which might make them a source of danger if they handled food.
I wish to refer to one other point, the currency given to the complete misinterpretation of our intentions by the right hon. Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. Elliot) during a television programme. I hope that the very misleading statements which went out to the public will be corrected by what we are doing here and now.

Mr. Willey: I wish to support my hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. G. Darling) and also to say that there seemed to be a point in the speeches of my hon. Friends who have medical qualifications. The Parliamentary Secretary said that if he left it to his instinct he would agree with them, but if he resorted to his reasoning he could not accept their case. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to rely on his instinct. We have had his reasoning exposed so often that we would rather that he relied on his instinct which, in short, means his experience.
I will concede at once that there may be difficulties about this specific proposal, but the Parliamentary Secretary referred to the report of the Catering Trade Working Party. In fact, the reports of both working parties emphasised the necessity for extending the provisions of the Public Health (Infectious Diseases) Regulations and that is the purpose behind this Amendment. It may be that without an Amendment it would be possible to go further along the lines we now desire, and so I will again appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to rely upon his instinct and to assure us that he is aware of the problem and the need to go wider than we have gone hitherto. Whether or not


he goes the whole way, as my hon. Friends suggest, at any rate I hope that he will assure us that his Department is seized of the need to go wider and to provide some adequate protection.

Dr. Hill: I have concentrated my attention specifically on the inclusion of new words, but I agree that there are loopholes in the medical examination provisions. I can give the assurance that we shall keep constantly in mind ways and means of strengthening the medical supervision so as to eliminate diseases relating to this problem, but I think that this proposal would give a false sense of security and be no solution to the problem.

Mr. Mitchison: Would the hon. Gentleman be prepared to go a little further? I agree that this proposal is put forward in a very sweeping form. But surely he is at present proposing to deprive himself of any power to order a medical examination, and is not that rash? Is it not possible that he might need some local or temporary power, according to the conditions, in some case where there might be an outbreak or an epidemic? Woud it not be wise, not necessarily to accept this Amendment, but to undertake to give himself power to require a medical examination of employees in the industry in appropriate cases? So far as I can see, it is at least doubtful if he has such power at present.

Dr. Stross: The Parliamentary Secretary has disappointed me. I think that his arguments are wrong. I-le must forgive me for adopting this view, but we face each other day in and day out, and year in and year out, and we get to know each other fairly well. I do not think that he——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has already spoken.

Dr. Stross: May I put it in this way, that having moved this Amendment and not feeling content with the answer——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: This is not the Committee stage of the Bill.

Dr. Morgan: What about some of us?

Dr. Stross: Am I entitled to ask a question before I make up my mind which way to use my vote? May I ask a question?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The question should have been put by the hon. Gentleman before he sat down.

Dr. Stross: May I put the point to you, Sir, and you may consider whether I put it in my speech? The question is whether the Parliamentary Secretary is prepared to look at this matter again.

Amendment negatived.

Dr. Hill: I beg to move, in page 7, line 15, after "staining," to insert "or sterilisation."
This Amendment goes together with the Amendment in line 19, to leave out from "yards," to "any," in line 20, and to insert:
or which, though not unfit for human consumption, is not intended therefor;
(g) for regulating generally the treatment and disposal of.
This is an important though small Amendment to meet a not unimportant point. The Minister wishes to be fully empowered to make regulations regarding the sterilisation of diseased meat in slaughterhouses and knackers' yards, and we seek to deal with the position at the pet shop. In fact, if the pet shop buys fresh butchers' meat which is not stained or sterilised hon. Members will appreciate what a ready answer that may provide in certain circumstances. It is therefore proposed to make the requirement of staining or sterilising such meat at the pet shop level, otherwise it would be possible to drive a horse and cart through the regulations.

Dr. Broughton: I believe the Amendments meet the point which some of my hon. Friends raised during Committee. The Minister has considered the speeches of my hon. Friends and accepted their recommendations, and we welcome the Amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 7, line 19, leave out from "yards," to "any," in line 20, and insert:
or which, though not unfit for human consumption, is not intended therefor;
(g) for regulating generally the treatment and disposal of."—[Dr. Hill.]

Mr. Amory: I beg to move, in page 7, line 27, at the end, to insert:
(3) In the last foregoing subsection "animals" includes poultry.


The object of the Amendment is to enable regulations to be made requiring the ante-mortem inspection of poultry. This is in accordance with everybody's wishes, and I am sure the House will be willing to accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

8.30 p.m.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Harry Hylton-Foster): I beg to move, in page 7, to leave out lines 40 to 42.
The object of this Amendment and the next Amendment is to fulfil an undertaking—to over-fulfil an undertaking, if that is possible—which I gave in Committee to meet criticisms justly made by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Higgs). I thank them for drawing attention to an imperfection.
Now that the county court has been chosen as the right tribunal to decide these matters, it has been thought more appropriate to confer the new jurisdiction by the terms of the Bill itself rather than by regulations. I hope that hon. Members will think that the proposal satisfactorily meets all their criticisms and will definitely improve the Bill.

Mr. Mitchison: I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for so fully meeting the point raised on an Amendment which I moved at an earlier stage. I congratulate him upon at last being lucid.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 8, line 5, at end, insert:
(4) If any person who has incurred, or is about to incur, expenditure in securing that the requirements of regulations made under this section, being requirements of a structural character, are complied with in respect of any premises owned or occupied by him claims that the whole or any part of the expenditure ought to be borne by any other person having an interest in the premises, he may apply to the county court, and the court may make such order concerning the expenditure or its apportionment as appears to the court, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, including the terms of any contract between the parties, to be just and equitable; and any order made under this section may direct that any such contract as aforesaid shall cease to have effect in so far as it is inconsistent with the terms of the order.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Mr. Amory: I beg to move, in page 8, line 16, at the end, to insert:
(6) The Ministers shall from time to time take such steps as they think expedient for publishing codes of practice in connection with matters which may be made the subject of regulations under this section, for the purpose of giving advice and guidance to persons responsible for compliance with such regulations.
The Amendment takes the place of an Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Batley and Morley (Dr. Broughton). I hope he will find it satisfactory.

Dr. Broughton: I thank the Minister for moving the Amendment, which certainly meets the point I raised earlier. I believe the Minister would have accepted my Amendment in Committee but he was not sure whether the code of practice should be issued by himself or some outside body. His Amendment contains the words:
The Ministers shall from time to time take such steps as they think expedient for publishing codes of practice …
That covers my point and lets the Minister out of his difficulty.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Clause 7.—(CATERING PREMISES.)

Dr. Hill: I beg to move, in page 8, line 31, after the first "or," to insert:
(in the case of an offence committed in respect of premises) to.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hastings (Mr. Cooper-Key), when moving an Amendment, raised the subject of the disqualification procedure. He pointed out that it would be possible for a prosecution to be successful under one heading—perhaps a personal heading—and for disqualification to take place under another heading, one that had not been the subject of prosecution. Whatever may be thought about the disqualification principle, it seemed desirable to clear up the point, and that is what the Amendment does.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Clause 10.—(LICENSING OF SALE OF FOOD ELSEWHERE THAN IN PREMISES.)

Dr. Hill: I beg to move, in page 12, to leave out lines 23 to 36, and to insert:
(4) If on the coming into operation of any regulations under this section in relation to any class of business, local Act provisions are in force in any district, being provisions under which persons engaged in that class of business are required to be licensed or registered, the regulations so far as they relate to that


class of business shall not apply to that district until such date as may be appointed by an order made by the Minister upon application in that behalf made by the local authority.
(5) Where an order is made in relation to any district under subsection (4) of this section, that order—

(a) may repeal such local Act provisions as are mentioned in that subsection so far as they relate to that district and to the class of business in relation to which the regulations under this section have effect; and
(b) shall provide for securing that persons licensed or registered under those provisions are, in relation to any business of the said class in which they are engaged, treated as licensed under the regulations.
The Amendment replaces subsection (4) by two new subsections. There is no essential change in the meaning, but we think it clearer on the point of the super-session of private Acts on matters which are the subject of regulations under the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Clause 11.—(PROVISIONS RELATING TO MILK.)

Mr. Amory: I beg to move, in page 13, line 7, after "milked," to insert—

(i) at any stage of a journey to or from a dairy farm,
(ii) at a slaughterhouse or knacker's yard, or
(iii).
The object of this Amendment is to enable regulations to be made prohibiting the sale for human consumption of milk obtained from cows which are milked while on a journey. The Clause did not provide satisfactorily for this circumstance; some Amendments were suggested but not moved, and I think that this Amendment deals with the situation satisfactorily.

Sir L. Plummer: The Minister is to be congratulated on this Amendment. Anyone who has seen cattle being driven to and from a sale or a market will appreciate that it is impossible to produce milk in ideal and hygienic conditions, quite apart from the fact that the animal is worried and anxious. There was a gap in the Bill, and I think it is now properly filled, for which we are grateful to the Minister.

Mr. W. R. Williams: I subscribe to the point of view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer). I have some

recollection in my early days of the sort of thing happening which this Amendment seeks to prevent. I remember farmers making quite sure that no milk would be lost, and it did not matter under what circumstances the milk was produced. Under the second head relating to slaughterhouses and knacker's yards, I saw things which were even worse. I have seen cows being milked when they were waiting to be killed in slaughterhouses. I do not think anybody nowadays would say that that practice was either hygienic or desirable.
I have much pleasure in associating myself with the remarks of my hon. Friend, and although we are getting a little tired of these compliments at this late stage of the Bill, I suppose it does no harm to exchange these little pleasantries. I am glad that the Minister is doing something to meet a very legitimate grievance, and I hope that he and the Parliamentary Secretary will follow this example later when we come to some equally important Amendments with which, of course, I cannot deal now in anticipation. All I am hoping is that this spirit which has been manifest in this connection will not be entirely absent as we proceed with these Amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 13, line 10, after "registered," insert:
in pursuance of regulations made."—[Mr. Amory.]

Dr. Summerskill: I beg to move, in page 13, line 13, at the end, to insert:
(e) for prohibiting the use of milk churns (whether by the persons to whom they belong or other persons) otherwise than as containers for milk, where the churns are in use for the purposes of the business of a dairyman.
I hope that the Minister, having reconsidered this matter, will now make a further concession. As he will see, the Amendment asks only for the prohibition of the use of milk churns, and the arguments which the Parliamentary Secretary made previously as to the unenforceability of the Amendment therefore do not hold. It is quite possible to exercise a close supervision of milk churns, and by doing so we shall at least have gone some way towards avoiding the horrible practices which were referred to in the last debate.

Dr. Hill: The right hon. Lady is quite right. We did undertake to look at this


point. I pass over the fact that she immediately called a Division in order to induce the Committee to reach a conclusion upon that point, but it was a real point, and we are happy to accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Pargiter: I beg to move, in page 14, line 6, to leave out from "collected," to the end of the subsection.
The position under the Clause has been altered to some extent because the question of possession has been much more clearly defined, and some of the points which I raised originally have now been met. It is still open to substantial objections, however, because under Section 71 of the principal Act the defence can be put forward that some person other than the farmer or his servant adulterated the milk in question.
In practice it is most unlikely that at any stage any such person would adulterate milk. He might break the seals and take out some of the milk, but it is not very likely that any person other than someone who has an interest in putting in water would adulterate the milk. Only under very exceptional circumstances would someone outside do so. A farm servant might, because he might want some milk to drink and might also wish to give the impression that no milk had gone, but that would be the farmer's responsibility.
Nobody but the farmer would have such an interest in adulterating the milk, and there are some farmers who would have an interest in selling water for the price of milk. Under the present provisions it is extremely difficult to deal satisfactorily with the matter, because although the seals may have been broken the farmer can plead, "The milk was sealed when I left it." It may have been sealed in the presence of a witness, but the farmer can still break the seal, and he can put forward the defence that he did not do so. The Amendment seeks to lay responsibility very definitely upon the farmer, and it seeks to prevent anybody putting forward the defence that someone else has put water in the milk.

Mr. G. Darling: I beg to second the Amendment.

Dr. Hill: As the hon. Member fairly said, we have dealt with this problem to some extent by defining

"possession" as including the churn at the end of the lane. That being so, bearing in mind that the farmer is now deemed to be in possession of a churn that may be 100 yards, 200 yards or even a mile away, we must surely allow him to put forward the defence under Section 71 (2) of the principal Act, which says:
It shall be a defence … to prove that the churn or other vessel in which the milk was contained was effectively closed and sealed at the time when it left his possession, but had been opened before the person by whom the sample was taken had access to it.
As we are now deeming the farmer to have possession of something which may be out of his physical possession and view, we must surely leave that defence undisturbed.

8.45 p.m.

Sir L. Plummer: I do not want to disturb the harmony that is prevailing tonight, but I would appeal to my hon. Friend not to press this Amendment. He said he thought that it was extremely unlikely that anybody would seek to adulterate milk if it were collected at the proper point of collection, but let me put to him the case of a farmer supplying a retailer who is not associated with the farmer except as a customer, the farmer acting as wholesaler as well as producer.
The retailer collects the milk. Suppose the retailer has criminal instincts and decides to water the milk. Then it would be very unfair that the farmer should be unable to plead the defence given to him in this Clause. I think that my hon. Friend's proposal puts too much on the farmer. It virtually says that he is to be responsible for the milk he supplies to the time of its acceptance by the ultimate customer, the consumer.
He may not be distributing the milk to that customer. Somebody else may be doing it who is not his agent, and it is wrong that in those circumstances he should be held responsible for that person's misdeeds. Although I support my hon. Friend in almost everything he says, I think that in this case it would be better in the interests of justice if he took the advice of the Parliamentary Secretary.

Mr. Pargiter: I am not at all sure that the interests of justice would be better served if there should be an unscrupulous farmer and an unscrupulous retailer, and


in that possibility lies the difficulty. However, I appreciate the difficulty which the Amendment makes, as described by the Parliamentary Secretary and my hon. Friend, and now that possession has been defined, and as that considerably helps the purpose I had in mind, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — Clause 12.—(CREAM SUBSTITUTES.)

Dr. Hill: I beg to move, in page 14, line 11, to leave out Clause 12.
This is consequential on our adding the new Clause with the rubric cream substitutes."

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Clause 14.—(SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS AS TO FOOD AND DRUGS AUTHORITIES.)

Amendment made: In page 16, line 9, leave out "(4)," and insert "(5)."—[Dr. Hill.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 15.—(ENFORCEMENT OF CERTAIN ENACTMENTS AND REGULATIONS.)

Mr. Higgs: I beg to move, in page 18, line 4, at the end, to insert:
Provided that a failure of a council to give such notice to the Minister or the inadequacy of a notice or a summary of the facts shall not preclude a conviction.
I have two other Amendments down, in page 18, line 4, at the end, to insert:
Provided that at the hearing no evidence shall be admitted as to the form or contents of the summary.
and in line 4, at the end, to insert:
A certificate of the Minister that the requirements of this subsection have been complied with in relation to any proceedings shall be conclusive evidence that they have been complied with in relation thereto; and any document purporting to be such a certificate as aforesaid and to be signed by or on behalf of the Minister shall be deemed to be such a certificate, unless the contrary is shown.
They are first, second and third thoughts, all to the same purpose, and they involve two points.
The Bill requires the prosecution to produce service of a notice. Inevitably that notice, and any documents that go with it, must be produced before the court. The defending advocate, without any regard to the merits of the case, might seek to escape the consequences of his client's defence by arguing that the notice or summary was irregular or incomplete in some way.
The second difficulty is an even more real one. The summary is a document sent by the local authority to the Minister to inform him of the reasons why the local authority is commencing proceedings. It might be proper for a local authority to tell the Minister in that summary a number of things that it would be quite improper to tell the court.
It might be proper to tell the Minister that the local authority was influenced by the fact that the proposed defendant had been convicted many times before for the same offence, or that a number of anonymous letters had been received. Those might be relevant considerations before commencing proceedings, but it would be very improper if the first witness for the prosecution were to tell those things to the court.
The purpose of the Amendment is, therefore, to secure that the notice, if possible, and certainly the summary is not put in evidence. If this Amendment is not agreeable to my hon. Friend, perhaps he will find my others agreeable.

Sir H. Linstead: I beg to second the Amendment.

Dr. Hill: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for having made a small but very important point. We want the notice to be given to the Minister, we recognise that proof of having given the notice may be required, but we do not want a situation created in which the summary could possibly be brought into the proceedings at this stage, by defending counsel or otherwise. We think that my hon. Friend's third thoughts are best, and, indeed, we are grateful to him for the thought which he has given to the matter.

Mr. Willey: I share the Parliamentary Secretary's view that we are much obliged to the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Higgs). This is a material point. I have certain views about his first, second and third thoughts, but if the Parliamentary Secretary feels that the third thoughts are acceptable to him, then we on this side of the House are willing to accept that Amendment.

Mr. Higgs: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: In page 18, line 4, at end, insert:
A certificate of the Minister that the requirements of this subsection have been complied with in relation to any proceedings shall be conclusive evidence that they have been complied with in relation thereto; and any document purporting to be such a certificate as aforesaid and to be signed by or on behalf of the Minister shall be deemed to be such a certificate, unless the contrary is shown.—[Mr. Higgs.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 18.—(POWERS OF SAMPLING.)

Captain Duncan: I beg to move, in page 19, line 6, at the end, to insert:
(5) The Act of 1950 shall be amended by inserting at the end of paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of section thirteen the words "it shall not be made a condition of licences that sampling authorities can obtain samples free of charge.
I had an Amendment down on Committee stage to the effect that all samples should be paid for when taken. That Amendment went too far, and this Amendment is an attempt in a more limited sphere, dealing only with milk, to put the question the other way round—namely, that it should not be made a condition of licences that sampling authorities should obtain samples free of charge. I hope that this modified approach, with a limited objective, will meet the views of the Government and will be acceptable to them, if not in legislative form at any rate in the drawing up of the regulations in due course.

Sir L. Plummer: I beg to second the Amendment.
This Amendment was originally down in my name and it followed one which had been moved by the hon. and gallant Member for South Angus (Captain Duncan). I was so carried away by the Parliamentary Secretary's eloquence in dealing with his hon. and gallant Friend on that occasion that I lost all sense of proportion—indeed, I lost my senses—and told the Parliamentary Secretary that he had convinced me. He had so convinced me that his hon. and gallant Friend was wrong that he drove from my mind the necessity for me to press this Amendment. I am very glad to have this opportunity to make amends for the ingenuousness and naivety on my part, and I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will accept this Amendment.

Dr. Hill: I am glad that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South

Angus (Captain Duncan) has given the hon. Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) this opportunity to recover from that excessive affability which led him not to move a proposal, the substance of which I was then in a mind to accept. This is a significant point. Why should we regard it as a condition of the licence that the sample should not be chargeable? I am glad that the point has been brought out, and if my hon. and gallant Friend will withdraw his Amendment we will propose, in rewriting the regulations in question—a task which will soon begin—to omit the condition to which he has drawn attention.

Captain Duncan: I thank my hon. Friend for having met the point. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — Clause 19.—(DISPOSAL OF SAMPLES TAKEN FOR ANALYSIS.)

Mr. Amory: I beg to move, in page 19, line 12, to leave out from "shall," to the end of line 29, on page 20, and to insert:
deal with the sample in accordance with the provisions of Schedule (Provisions as to the manner in which samples taken or purchased for analysis are to be dealt with) to this Act.
(2) The said Schedule shall apply to the purchase of samples by any person who is neither a sampling officer nor a person having the powers of a sampling officer as they apply in relation to the purchase of samples by a sampling officer; and references therein to a sampling officer shall be construed accordingly.
(3) Any reference in the principal Act or this Act to this section shall be construed as including a reference to the said Schedule.
This Amendment gives effect to a promise made to my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Higgs) and my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Sir A. Bossom) that these procedural provisions would be transferred from this Clause to a Schedule.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 20, line 42, leave out from beginning, to end of line 15, on page 21.—[Mr. Amory.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 20.—(OTHER PROVISIONS RELATING TO SAMPLING, ANALYSES, ETC.)

Dr. Hill: I beg to move, in page 22, to leave out lines 14 to 19, and to insert:
(4) For subsections (3) and (4) of section sixty-nine of the principal Act there shall be substituted the following subsections:—
(3) The public analyst shall analyse as soon as practicable any sample submitted to him in pursuance of this section but may, in the case of a sample submitted by a person not being an officer of the food and drugs authority, demand in advance the payment of such fee as may be fixed by the authority.
(4) If—

(a) the office of public analyst for the area in question is vacant; or
(b) the public analyst determines that he is for any reason unable to perform an effective analysis
the sample shall be submitted or, as the case may be, sent by the public analyst to whom it was originally submitted, to the public analyst for some other area, and he shall, upon payment to him of such sum as may be agreed analyse the sample.
(5) A public analyst who has analysed a sample shall give to the person by whom it was originally submitted a certificate specifying the result of the analysis; and any such certificate shall be in a form prescribed by regulations made by the Minister of Food and the Minister of Health acting jointly.
(6) Where a sample taken or purchased by a sampling officer has been analysed by a public analyst, any person to whom a part of The sample was given under the Schedule (Provisions as to manner in which samples taken and purchased for analysis are to be dealt with) to the Food and Drugs (Amendment) Act, 1954, shall be entitled, on payment to the authority by whose officer the sample was procured of a fee of one shilling, to be supplied with a copy of the certificate given by the public analyst under the last foregoing subsection.
This Amendment deals with two points. The first was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead), and the second by the hon. Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer). The first point raised was this. When a sample has to be sent to a public analyst in another area it shall be sent by the public analyst to whom it was first submitted. We shall be glad to accept this suggestion of my hon. Friend.
The hon. Member for Deptford raised a series of points in connection with sampling. We feel that he sustained the point that the individual who retains the

third part should have the right, on application, to obtain a copy of the analyst's report. This is a small but quite important change, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would wish us to extend it to all samples, as we have done, and not merely to milk samples. We feel that the argument which he made out was a powerful one, and although the Amendment does not meet all the points he made, I think that he will agree that it covers the most important one.

Mr. Pargiter: The public analyst will in many cases be a whole-time paid public servant. In those cases, why should payment be made to the analyst? Should not the payment be made to the local authority?

Dr. Hill: If the hon. Gentleman will look at the wording, he will see that payment is made to the authority.

Sir H. Linstead: I should like to thank my hon. Friend for having made this amendment in the wording of the Bill, and to ask him if I have understood him correctly, because the wording is a little involved. I take it that the new wording is designed to secure, and does secure, that if a decision is taken that a particular public analyst cannot do the analysis and therefore the sample has to be sent to someone else, it is the public analyst who takes that decision and the public analyst who sends the sample on to his colleague.

Sir L. Plummer: In thanking the Parliamentary Secretary for meeting the point which I raised, may I refer to the other part of the Amendment which I moved, that in the event of the analyst deciding that the sample should be analysed, the farmer would be told that it was to be analysed? I thought at the time that the Paliamentary Secretary said that he would look into that point.

Dr. Hill: I did look into that point, but we felt that would raise a number of repercussions and that it had been sufficiently met by returning to the old periods of time.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Clause 24.—(COMMENCEMENT OF PROCEEDINGS.)

Amendment made: In page 24, line 11, leave out Clause 24.—[Dr. Hill.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 25.—(PENALTIES AND OFFENCES BY CORPORATIONS.)

Mr. Willey: I beg to move, in page 24, line 23, to leave out "one hundred," and insert "two hundred and fifty."
I am surprised that we have not the Solicitor-General here. I understand that he is on his way, and I hope that he has been spending his time reading the speeches which he made in Committee on the Merchandise Marks Bill, to which I called his attention when I moved a rather different Amendment at an earlier stage in our proceedings. I am in some difficulty, because I hoped that the points which I proposed to make would influence the right hon. and learned Gentleman's reply. I hope that he has not made up his mind so that nothing that I say will have any effect upon him.
I make a point which the Parliamentary Secretary will appreciate. We have expressed some concern about Clause 7, in which there is the provision that a court can make an order disqualifying a caterer from using his premises as catering premises for a period not exceeding two years. We are most anxious that this business of disqualification should not become the practice of the courts. We do not think that they are properly equipped to know the facts. If this resort to the courts is to be made we hope that reliance will not be placed upon putting a man out of business for two years. They have not got the opportunity properly to examine the matter.
9.0 p.m.
If the choice is merely between a penalty of £100, which is far less than the average provision of about £200 to £250 in current statutes, there is a strong temptation to resort to the disqualification. This is a new factor since we last discussed the matter in the presence of the Solicitor-General. I should have thought that because of the new Clause there was, from the point of view of practical administration, everything to be said for increasing the penalty.
Different circumstances now obtain. We emphasise that, because Clause 7 provides for disqualification for two years, there should be a better alternative than merely a fine of £100 which is less than is provided in most statutes with which we can compare the Bill. I concede at once that there is no rhyme or reason about the penalties. It is difficult

to compare penalty with penalty and to deduce any principle at all but, with the new conditions which obtain, there is everything to be said for having a penalty of more than £100.
I hope that the Solicitor-General is well fortified by having carefully studied what he said on the Committee stage of the Merchandise Marks Act and that he will agree, in the light of the new factor that there is power to disqualify, that it would be better to allow the courts the alternative of imposing a fine of more than £100.

Mr. G. Darling: I beg to second the Amendment.

The Solicitor-General: We share with the hon. Member the desire that the penalties in these Clauses should be adequate and right, but I know that he realises that this is a difficult problem because there is no very precise measure which can be applied. I entirely agree that whatever guidance we can get from legislation in other fields is really quite useless. I looked, in courtesy to him, at what he said about merchandise marks in Committee, and I was glad to discover, as he had there declared, that it is positively confusing to look at penalties in other legislation. I respectfully agree with him.
We have looked very carefully at the question. The difficulty is that obviously one's object ought to be to keep the maximum penalty broadly in line with the maximum penalty that this House had recently approved in legislation of this class. As the House well knows, despite the exceptions, the standard maximum fine in magistrates courts, broadly speaking, is now £100. One would want strong grounds before departing from that. Broadly, the list of exceptions covers that kind of case where one must give the magistrates power to take out the profit from transactions which are inherently profitable, such as tax evasion, or duty evasion, or trafficking in opium and jolly practices like that. There is also the broad class of exceptions where, for quite different reasons, imprisonment is not the threat it would be here—the kind of legislation which is going to deal with defendants like large corporations and offences under the Merchant Shipping Acts or civil aviation or something of that kind.
I ask the House to think how different is this case from some of the penalties


we have to consider in that the £100 maximum has the recent approval of this House in this field. The principal Act here is not so very old in the sense in which we are speaking. It dates to only 1938. One is surprised to notice that in the principal Act, for practices so dangerous as selling food unfit for human consumption, it is thought that a fine of £50 is enough. That was in only 1938. The Act of 1950, under the last Administration, also approved a maximum of £100 fine to be applied in practices as dangerous as selling tuberculous milk, which seems a horrible enough kind of offence.
So I urge that essentially the £100 maximum is something which has the very recent approval of this House in this field. The hon. Member spoke about the penalty of disqualification of premises for two years. I know he will bear in mind that the penalty of a £100 fine and three months' imprisonment is for the first offence. Although I do not know the psychology of defendants in this field, I would have thought that it was a stalwart defendant who would not be deterred by that.
I would add other considerations and one is, according to the information available to me that none of the magistrates' courts has found its powers insufficient in this field since the House so recently approved this penalty. That is a matter the House would want to take into account. Having given this the most careful consideration we feel that the effect of this would be to put the maximum penalty quite out of line with the general standard, and out of line with the penalty that the House has already approved in this field. In those circumstances, I feel obliged not to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Willey: Before I ask leave to withdraw this Amendment, I make just this final appeal to the hon. and learned Gentleman. He has not done me the honour of studying what I said before he came. I hope he will take advantage of that and advise his noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor when this Bill returns to another place that we do not share the Parliamentary Secretary's abhorrence of the catering industry. We do not share his dislike of this industry and we are anxious to avoid unnecessarily bringing it before the police court. We are anxious, also, to avoid the police courts having to

resort to disqualifying a man from carrying on his business, except in a particularly flagrant case.
I accept what he said about a standard fine. We have been conducting a Dutch auction and he has brought us down to this £100. But in this case there is the exceptional factor that we do not want the court to feel obliged to resort to disqualification when, in the circumstances of the case, it might be that a fine larger than £100 would better meet the case. I know he will carefully consider all I have said. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — Clause 28.—(MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS RELATING TO BOARD OF TRADE AND THEIR REGULATIONS.)

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Henry Strauss): I beg to move, in page 26, line 41, after "entry," to insert:
and section twenty-one of this Act.
This is really a drafting Amendment, and rectifies an accidental omission.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Clause 32.—(INTERPRETATION.)

Dr Hill: I beg to move, in page 28, line 11, to leave out from "any," to "shall" in line 12, and to insert:
place where food is supplied in the course of a business.
This Amendment is proposed to meet a point raised during the Committee stage by the hon. Member for Batley and Morley (Dr. Broughton). He asked if the words were sufficiently comprehensive to cover all possible kinds of catering establishments. We have put in words which I am sure he will agree remove any doubt that he had, and will be useful in administration.

Dr. Broughton: The Parliamentary Secretary is quite right. This Amendment meets the point which I made during the Committee stage, and I thank the Minister for having considered it and put down this Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 28, line 14, leave out "any catering establishment," and insert:
connection with any business in the course of which food is supplied."—[Dr. Hill.]

Orders of the Day — New Schedule.—(PROVISIONS AS TO MANNER IN WHICH SAMPLES TAKEN OR PURCHASED FOR ANALYSIS ARE TO BE DEALT WITH.)

1. The sampling officer shall forthwith divide the sample into three parts, each part to be marked and sealed or fastened up in such manner as its nature will permit, and shall—

(a) with respect to one part of the sample comply with paragraphs 2 to 8 of this Schedule, and
(b) deal with the remaining parts in accordance with paragraph 9 of this Schedule.

2.—(1) If the sample was purchased by the sampling officer, he shall give the part of the sample to the vendor.

(2) In relation to a sample purchased from an automatic machine, this paragraph shall apply as if for the reference to the vendor there were substituted a reference—

(a) if the name and address (being an address in England or Wales) of a person stated to be the proprietor of the machine appears on the machine, to that person;
(b) in any other case, to the occupier of the premises on which the machine stands or to which it is affixed.

3. If the sample is of goods consigned from outside England and Wales and was taken by the sampling officer before delivery to the consignee, the officer shall give the part of the sample to the consignee.

4.—(1) This paragraph applies in relation to any sample of milk taken by the sampling officer, except to—

(a) one in relation to which the last foregoing paragraph applies, or
(b) any sample of cream.

(2) If the sample was taken from a container—

(a) having a capacity greater than six pints, and
(b) appearing to the officer to show the name and address (being an address in England or Wales) of any person as consignor of the milk.
the officer shall give the part of the sample to that person.

(3) If the sample was taken from a container—

(a) having a capacity of six pints or less, and
(b) appearing to the officer to show the name and address (being an address in England and Wales) of any person as the person who put the milk into the container,
the officer shall give the part of the sample to that person.

(4) If—

(a) neither of the two foregoing subparagraphs apply, and
(b) the sample was taken at a dairy,
the officer shall give the part of the sample to the occupier of the dairy.

(5) If none of the three foregoing subparagraphs apply, the officer shall give the part of the sample—

(a) to the occupier of the dairy from which the milk was consigned, or
(b) if the milk was consigned from more than one dairy, to the occupier of the dairy from which it was last consigned.

5. If—

(a) none of the foregoing paragraphs of this Schedule apply, and
(b) the sample was taken by the sampling officer at the request of a purchaser, or taken with the consent of a purchaser by retail,
the officer shall give the part of the sample to the vendor.

6. If—

(a) none of the foregoing paragraphs of this Schedule apply, and
(b) the sample was taken in transit,
the sampling officer shall give the part of the sample to the consignor.

7. If none of the foregoing paragraphs of this Schedule apply, the sampling officer shall give the part of the sample to the person appearing to be the owner of the food, drug or substance of which the sample was taken.

8. In every case to which paragraphs 2 to 7 of this Schedule apply the sampling officer shall inform the person to whom the part of the sample is given that the sample was purchased or taken for the purpose of analysis by a public analyst.

9. Of the remaining parts of the sample, the sampling officer shall, unless he decides not to have an analysis made, submit one for analysis in accordance with section sixty-nine of the principal Act, and retain the other for future comparison.

10. Any part of a sample which under this Schedule is to be given to any person may be given either by delivering it to him or to his agent or by sending it to him by post in a registered packet; but where after reasonable inquiry the sampling officer is unable to ascertain the name and address of the person to whom the part of the sample is to be given, he may, in lieu of giving the part to that person, retain it.—[Dr. Hill.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Dr. Hill: I beg to move, "That the Schedule be read a Second time."
An assurance was given to my hon. Friends the Member for Maidstone (Sir A. Bossom) and the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Higgs) that an attempt would be made to put this matter in a Schedule so that the language would be freer than is possible in the body of the Statute. This has been done without a change of meaning.

Mr. Higgs: We are extremely grateful to my hon. Friend. It is very much simpler as set out in the Schedule and


one can find one's place. It will be appreciated by those who administer the Bill when it becomes an Act.

Schedule read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Orders of the Day — First Schedule.—(APPLICATION OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF PRINCIPAL ACT AND THIS ACT TO NORTHERN IRELAND.)

Amendments made: In page 33, line 12, after "Act," insert "subsection (4) of section (Food Hygiene Advisory Council) of this Act."

In line 13, after "made," insert "or to be made."

In page 34, line 49, after "or," insert "and the words 'or use'."

In page 35, line 9, column 2, leave out from beginning, to "shall," in line 19, and insert "Subsections (2) and (5)."

In line 41, at end, insert:

Schedule (Provisions as to manner in which samples taken or purchased for analysis are to be dealt with).
Sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 2 shall not apply.
In paragraphs 3 and 4, for references to England and Wales there shall be substituted references to Northern Ireland.
In paragraph 9 for the words "in accordance with section sixty-nine of the principal Act "there shall be substituted the words "as if the sample had been procured under section thirteen of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875."—[The Solicitor-General.]

Orders of the Day — Second Schedule.—(MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS.)

9.15 p.m.

Dr. Hill: I beg to move, in page 36, line 40, at the end, insert:

Section 11
In subsection (1), for the words "The foregoing provisions relating to unsound food," there shall be substituted the words "The last two foregoing sections.

Section 12
For the words "an authorised officer of a local authority," there shall be substituted the words "an authorised officer of a council.

There are two points involved here. The first is a purely drafting point, and the second is to put "an authorised officer of a council" in the same position as that

enjoyed by "an authorised officer of a local authority."

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 38, leave out lines 30 to 34.—[Dr. Hill.]

Mr. Higgs: I beg to move, in page 38, line 43, at the end, to insert:
and for the words 'of any food of which' there shall be substituted the words 'of any article or substance of which'.
If I reposed on the Front Bench, the House would probably allow me to get away with the one word "drafting," but as I am moving the Amendment from this more humble situation on the back benches, I move it in two words by saying "consequential Amendment."

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 39, line 6, after "subsections," insert:
(except in paragraph (a) of the proviso to subsection (1)).

In page 40, line 42, at end, insert:

Section 94
In subsections (1) and (2) for the words "a local authority" (wherever they occur) there shall be substituted the words "a council" and for the words "the authority" (wherever they occur) there shall be substituted the words "the council.
For subsection (3) there shall be substituted the following subsection:—
(3) For the purposes of this section, a public analyst appointed by a food and drugs authority shall be treated as being an officer of the authority whether or not he is employed whole-time.

In page 42, leave out lines 22 to 34.

In line 36, at end, insert:

Section 31
For the words "artificial cream" there shall be substituted the words "reconstituted cream as defined by section (Cream substitutes) of the Food and Drugs Amendment Act, 1954.

In page 43, line 12, leave out from "1954," to "or," in line 14, and insert:
and made for the purposes of paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (2) of that section."— [The Solicitor-General.]

Orders of the Day — Third Schedule.—(REPEALS.)

In page 44, column 3, leave out lines 32 and 33, and insert:
In section seventy-seven, in subsection (2), the words from "and, where the justice is satisfied" to "use in the manufacture of artificial cream," and subsection (7).

In page 44, line 43, column 3, at end, insert "artificial cream."

In page 45, column 3, line 12, leave out from beginning, to "thirty," in line 16, and insert "Sections twenty-nine and."

In page 45, line 19, at beginning, insert "artificial cream'."—[Dr. Hill.]

Bill re-committed to a Committee of the whole House in respect of the Amendment standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Dr. Broughton, to a Clause inserted on consideration of the Bill (Food Hygiene Advisory Council) in line 24.—[Mr. Amory.]

Bill immediately considered in Committee.

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair.]

Orders of the Day — Clause.—(FOOD HYGIENE ADVISORY COUNCIL.)

Dr. Broughton: I beg to move, in subsection (4, b), after the second "draft," to insert "code of practice or a draft."

The Minister has been good enough to accept an Amendment of mine relating to the code of practice, as a result of which I move this consequential Amendment.

Sir L. Plummer: I beg to second the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, with an Amendment; as amended (on re-committal) considered.

9.20 p.m.

Mr. Amory: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
If the Bill to some extent lacks the attribute of glamour, perhaps it is none the worse for that. It is essentially an example of the practical and painstaking way which Parliament follows in a field which is of the very greatest importance, because it affects the health and welfare of every individual in the country. I believe that it is a progressive and forward-looking Measure. As Minister, I came along rather late in this business, after the beginning of consideration of the Bill. I have realised right through that because of that I have not been as familiar with the more technical aspects of some of its provisions as I should have wished. It has been a matter of "learn as you earn."
The House and the Committee, however, have been tolerant, and fortunately

the Parliamentary Secretary has shown complete mastery of the subject, as would have expected him to do. Fortunately, also, I have had the benefit of the sound knowledge of the right hon. Lady the Member for Fulham, West (Dr. Summerskill) and the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey), a knowledge which they attained during previous manifestations when they were Ministers in Parliament. As a layman in these matters, I should like to pay humble tribute to the very wide knowledge and experience which so many hon. Gentlemen in all parts of the House have shown in discussion, and also to the hard work that they have nut in during our debates on the Bill. The result of all this is that, personally, I am satisfied that a Bill which began as a good one is an even better one now.
There are several reasons why it is important and timely that we should be considering these matters at the present time. First of all, it is important because during recent years there has been a very great increase in the practice of eating out. That has emphasised the need for the utmost cleanliness that we can obtain in the preparation of food. Then there has been the work of the food chemists, which of recent years has brought into use many new food substances and food processes. That is a matter to which the hon. Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) referred earlier. Science has also thrown much new light on the causes of food poisoning. Lastly, there is the growing awareness of people generally of the importance of the cleanliness of food as a safeguard of public health, and the raising of aesthetic standards throughout the community. Therefore, it is a right time for us to be taking a further important step forward in the development of our legal code for the purity and fitness of food for human consumption. That briefly is what the Bill does.
No one will deny that there is plenty of room for improvement, but I am sure that the House would not like anyone to think that improvements must necessarily wait on legal requirements. Things are moving in the right direction. Many enlightened manufacturers and traders are recognising more and more the need for cleanliness and the commercial improvement that it brings to their business. There is plenty of evidence of that, ranging from the new shops which we


see with glass-protected counters to the installation of modern sinks and hot and cold water in even small modern premises. I think that any one of us who has been across the Atlantic and visited the United States and Canada must feel that we are lagging sadly behind; the difference is very great indeed. But I believe this Bill will encourage further progress and do a lot to guide it on the right lines.
I suppose we must not overdo things in this direction and become too scientific about our food. I think it is possible to have articles of food which are perfectly sterilised, magnificently wrapped up, but which have no nourishment whatever, no flavour and no pleasure to be obtained from eating them.

Mr. G. Darling: Breakfast cereals.

Mr. Amory: Too scientific descriptions of food are a drawback. I remember once being put off for quite a time from eating as much bread as ordinarily I do, through reading some advice given in a Government circular—not issued by Her Majesty's present Government—urging that I should, "maximise" my "intake of cereal filling," by which I thought was meant that I should eat more bread. I reduced my ration for quite a time.
What we want to do is to create conditions which will encourage manufacturers, traders and all who work in food trades to prepare and handle food in a cleanly manner and we do want food of full nutritive value. I feel sure that the powers conferred by this Bill will go far to enable those objectives to be achieved. The interest the House has taken in this Bill is evidenced by the very large number of Amendments which have been put forward. There have been nearly 200, which is quite exceptional for a Bill of 30 odd Clauses. It should also be noted that well over half of those Amendments have been accepted, either during Committee stage or accepted in principle then and given effect to during Report stage. During our discussions we have talked of many things, among them Bristol-cream and cream-buns. As I have sat here ever since half-past three, either of those would have some attraction for me at present.
I shall not refer to any of the individual provisions of the Bill because we

have discussed them so thoroughly, but I wish to say one or two things in general. This Bill has a great deal of legislation by reference in it. That is something we all wish to avoid. Therefore, I think it will require some tidying up and the Government propose a consodidation Bill. Since this Bill repeals Section 13 of the 1938 Act it is necessary that the Food Hygiene Regulations, which have been laid in the Library in draft form, should be introduced at the same time as that Section 13 is repealed. I repeat that we plan a consolidation Bill and we plan that the consolidation Bill and the Regulations, with a few exceptions, shall come into force on the same day. We want to lose no time in that matter and we mean to lose no time. We fully expect that that will happen during the early months of next year.
It has been said that one cannot make people good by Act of Parliament. That may be equally true of cleanliness as of Godliness—I do not know—but I believe that this Bill will go a long way in providing the legislative framework and the regulations we are proposing will fill in many of the details. When the Bill is passed, local authorities and their officers will have great responsibilities. I am sure that they, together with food manufacturers, traders and trade unions representing those who work in those trades, will all play their part to secure the smooth working of this law and the achievement of the standards of purity and cleanliness in the nation's food at which we all aim. But when one has said that it still remains true—and here I agree with the hon. Member for Batley and Morley (Dr. Broughton)—that education and the creation of the right outlook are means by which the best progress can be made.
I am, and always have been, a firm believer that what is achieved by education and persuasion is generally more fruitful and lasting than what is achieved by compulsion. Let us do what we can individually and collectively to encourage and promote a healthy and active public opinion in these matters.
There have been some quite lively passages during our discussion and the debate generally has been healthy. But now that those discussions are over and we can see this Bill in perspective. I believe that the whole


House will agree that it is a sound Measure of practical reform. I hope that the House will send it on its way with the good wishes of us all and I ask this House to give the Bill a unanimous Third Reading.

9.31 p.m.

Dr. Summerskill: In the course of the last 10 years I have stood, either at this Dispatch Box or the other, and spoken on the Third Reading of many social Measures. I have always experienced a certain pleasure on those occasions. There has been mutual satisfaction, and generally I have observed that the House has recognised that a social Measure is divorced from party implications. When we have reached the Third Reading we have realised that the Bill has almost reached the Statute Book and will in due course be interpreted in such a manner that a large number of people will be all the better for it.
I must say that this is an exception to the general rule, and I am sorry. The Minister is a newcomer and he has been pitch-forked into a rather technical discussion. It was clear to me that he has found himself a little out of his depth. At times I felt almost protective towards him, because he exercises a charm which almost penetrates to this side of the House. Nevertheless the passage of this Bill has been unprecedented. I cannot experience any satisfaction about it, not the satisfaction which I anticipated when in 1948 I was responsible in the Ministry of Food for initiating this Measure.
I say that I cannot anticipate satisfaction, because I cannot foresee what is to happen in the light of the discussions. I regarded this as an important social Measure, but every stage has produced disappointment after disappointment. There has been a grudging acceptance of each Amendment. Quite rightly the Minister says that he has accepted nearly half the Amendments put down. But that is a confession of guilt. He should not be proud of that fact. He should have recognised that those Amendments ought to have been unnecessary. His Parliamentary Secretary should have advised him that the arguments advanced by my hon. Friends were unanswerable. The Minister was forced into the position of accepting Amendment after Amendment.
My vocabulary has been exhausted in trying to find new expressions of thanks

to apply to the Minister. I think that I must have called him "sympathetic" on at least 20 occasions, because he had accepted some Amendment which any ordinary person with no technical knowledge could not have resisted. Why is it that on this important social Measure the Minister has not been more generous? Why has he not come to the House and said, "We are in the middle of the 20th century. This provision "—some elementary provision in the field of hygiene" must be accepted"?
I would remind the Minister that in 1954 we have debated in this House for 40 minutes whether spitting should be prohibited in places where food is prepared. I stood at the Dispatch Box and asked the Minister to accept the Amendment. He refused. Later the Parliamentary Secretary said that he would consider the form of words. I refused to accept that. Finally, when I said that we must go into the Division Lobby on the subject of spitting the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary said that they would accept the Amendment.
On the Third Reading of a Bill I like to be mellow and tolerant and a little forgiving. I am trying to be forgiving now, but I cannot forget the debate on spitting.

Mr. Amory: I am just wondering what the right hon. Lady would have been like if we had not agreed to it.

Dr. Summerskill: Unfortunately, the Minister was not in the Chamber two hours ago or he would have heard what I should have been like in that event.
This is why we are a little sceptical about the future of the Measure. I want to remind the Minister of its deplorable history. A year ago it passed through another House. Does the Minister recall that Thursday after Thursday we pressed the Leader of the House to arrange a day for its Second Reading? In the first place we were given two hours on a Friday. We resisted that. Finally, after a great deal of pressure from the back benches, we were given a whole Friday.
On the Committee stage we had pages and pages of Amendments. They were not framed by ignorant persons from this side of the House, as has been alleged on certain occasions by hon. Members opposite. They were framed as the result of the reports of three authoritative


committees which had been set up many years ago, committees representing every aspect of the food and catering trade. Despite those reports, we have had the wearisome business of going through Amendment after Amendment. An Amendment dealing with clean churns has been accepted today. The Parliamentary Secretary will recall that we spent 25 minutes on the subject, and, finally, I had to say that we should
divide. We divided on the subject of
clean churns and bottles.

Dr. Hill: I willingly agreed to consider the point about churns. Despite that agreement, the right hon. Lady, for some reason best known to herself, decided to divide the House.

Dr. Summerskill: Certainly.
The Parliamentary Secretary ought to have learnt his lesson by now. He must not attempt to mislead the House. I have already shown the House how willing he is to do that. He will recall that the Amendment in which we divided dealt with churns and bottles. He has not included bottles in his new Amendment. Feeling that we had to get on with the Bill, I was prepared to accept the concession that he offered. Therefore, I have to tell him that he is wrong again.
This is why I have to speak very strongly on Third Reading. I feel that the Government have been shamed into accepting a large number of Amendments for political reasons only. I cannot believe that they have had a change of heart; if they have, why were not some of the Amendments accepted at earlier
stages? It appears that the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary have felt at the last moment that for political reasons some of the Amendments must be accepted.
The next point on which I wish to comment is the registration of catering premises. On the question of the registration of catering premises, and the Minister's powers in Clause 6, the debate has been deplorable. It has been most unfortunate, and the time will come very soon, perhaps next year, when the public will demand that these premises shall be registered.
It was deplorable for the Parliamentary Secretary to have to confess at the last moment this afternoon that he had had

representations from the catering trade through an hon. Friend of his, after he had stated in this House that he had had no representations from the catering trade. This is not what we should expect in a debate on a great social Measure. I believe the Conservative Government have betrayed the best elements on their back benches in this matter.
Finally, I have completely lost faith in the Government's good intentions with regard to this Bill, particularly with regard to Clause 6. The Minister has great powers, but unfortunately they are only permissive. It has been necessary for us day after day to press for certain of these provisions to be accepted and included in the enabling powers. How can we hope for the Minister to exercise those powers? That is why I am a little despondent and am not enjoying, as I had anticipated, the sense of achievement that one should experience in this House when finally a social Measure reaches its Third Reading. It seems now that instead of sitting back and looking for the next task, we on these benches have to remain vigilant in order to ensure that the Government will afford the people protection against adulterated and infected food.

9.42 p.m.

Dr. Stross: The Minister spoke of education and said a few words about our attitude to clean and nutritive food not being excessively scientific. As my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Morley (Dr. Broughton) is not in his place, perhaps I may be allowed to say that I think he should be given some credit for having initiated a certain debate in February, 1951. As he is not in the Chamber, it is for me to put on record the work that he has done since that time in providing a series of lectures which have been printed and which are used by the St. John Ambulance Association.
I appeal to the Minister, on this question of education, to bear in mind that where food handling is concerned we should focus our efforts upon the mass of the people who are handling food. Simple knowledge very widely diffused is much more important from this point of view than technical knowledge held by only a few.
On the question of being too scientific about food, there is another aspect. We rely upon the highly educated people to


advise us. I fear that we are too scientific about our food in another direction; namely, that science is able to offer us almost anything we care for and many things that we know nothing about and do not care for. The Minister has taken powers, I think in Clause 4, to garner every fragment of information available, and he can store it and sift it, through the medium of his servants, or his right hon. Friend the Minister of Health will have to do it. That knowledge will be as comprehensive as any existing in the world.
As a result of that knowledge we expect some protection, but throughout all our deliberations we have noted how permissive are many of the Clauses. We urge the Minister, his right hon. Friend and the Parliamentary Secretary to bear in mind the fact that there is plenty of good will and good sense available to back up the knowledge that he is going to garner, sort out and analyse.
There is good will from every quarter of the food manufacturing and processing trade, and also from the chemical manufacturers, and it is from them that he will obtain a great deal of information. I hope that as well as receiving it he will send out information so that everybody will be well informed; always observing certain safeguards, for we do not want to give away secrets.
As for good sense, I do not think that our people lack it. We know that enthusiasts exist on both sides of the House. There are those who think that whatever is done with food it does not matter, that no harm will come to anybody. There are others who are so obsessed by certain aspects of the problem that one cannot easily argue with them. In 1951 we said that it was a question of education, agitation and legislation. It is fair to say that the Bill is really ours, and its possibilities are immense if it is properly handled. Everything depends upon the attitude of the Government in power and the Department concerned, but using good will and good sense we ought to go very far towards protecting our people, in the way in which my right hon. Friend mentioned, against infectious disease and adulteration.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

Orders of the Day — PHARMACY BILL [Lords]

Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

Orders of the Day — TRUSTEE SAVINGS BANKS BILL [Lords]

Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

Orders of the Day — POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANK BILL [Lords]

Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

TRANSPORT CHARGES &c. (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL

Lords Amendments considered.

Clause 3.—(APPLICATION OF CHARGES SCHEMES TO INDEPENDENT RAILWAY AND INLAND WATERWAY UNDERTAKINGS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 3, line 38, leave out "1953" and insert "1954."

The Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment is necessitated by reason of the fact that the Transport Charges Scheme, 1954, has taken the place of the 1953 scheme since the Bill left this House.

Clause 13.—(INTERPRETATION.)

Lords Amendment: In page 15, line 5, leave out "1937" and insert "1947."

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is necessary to correct the citation, so as to bring in the Act of 1947.

Mr. Ernest Davies: How did it happen that this mistake was made originally? After all, from 1937 to 1947 is a quite considerable time. Obviously there has been some slip up somewhere, and I think the Minister should give us some explanation.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: By leave of the House I would explain that the position is that the Road Traffic (Driving Licences) Act, 1947, should in the original draft of the interpretation Clause have been included with the other Road Traffic Acts. Owing to an oversight it was not.

NATIONAL SAVINGS MOVEMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Kaberry.]

9.53 p.m.

Mr. Cyril Osborne: I wish to raise the question of the National Savings Movement, which at present is appealing for 2 million new savers, and I want to ask my Ministerial Friends, when they arrive, if the Government are doing everything possible to assist the National Savings Movement to get those 2 million new savers. There are about 500,000 voluntary workers in the Savings Movement who, for the past 30 years, have been working unceasingly, with little thanks and no reward, for this excellent cause, in schools and universities, the trade unions, voluntary organisations, factories and businesses. I want to know if the Government are giving them all the support they possibly can.
The 2 million new savers could and should come from what are called the industrial groups. It is extraordinary that, after all these years of publicity, only 15 per cent. of the people who are employed in industry belong to savings groups attached to the works. That figure is far too low. Even in the larger firms, employing 500 men and more, where there is usually an organisation to help savings within the groups, only 36 per cent. of the employees belong to these groups.
I wonder whether my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary can do anything with the smaller firms, first, because in those firms the question of whether or not there will be a savings group depends largely on the attitude of the employer. If he is favourably inclined, then he can get something going. Could a special appeal be made to the employers in small firms to encourage savings groups within those works?
This morning I went to the headquarters of the National Savings Movement and I learned for the first time that only a few weeks ago a new retirement savings scheme was evolved. To my surprise—I must admit that I did not know of this—the Treasury have agreed under the new retirement savings scheme that certain contributions can be made by the small employer which will rank as an expense for taxable purposes. This is a great encouragement to the small groups but it is not well known, and I appeal to my hon. Friend to do what he can to publicise this new scheme.
The amount which we are saving in this country is lamentably small. Withdrawals from the National Savings Movement in 1952–53 were £33¾ million more than the amount saved, even after allowing for accumulated interest. Last year, 1953–54, the new savings including interest, amounted to only £28¾ million, which means that on the two years we hardly broke even. These figures are pathetically small when they are compared with the huge amounts which are being paid out in the factories and works as wages and salaries.
Looking at one of the Blue Books the other day, I was surprised to see that in the last eight years, since 1946, wages in this country have increased by no less than £2,500 million per annum. That is a staggering figure, and it is the source from which we have to recruit the 2 million new savers and to obtain the savings which the country requires. Have the Government considered making a social survey to see where the extra £2,500 million has gone? It would be interesting, from a social point of view, to know how much of this extra money goes to the housewife. I wonder how many women know how much money their husbands earn. I do not believe that women today receive nearly as high a proportion of the wage packets as they received before the war.
If the Government could attempt some social survey into these facts it would help considerably. On balance, the women would be better savers than the men. When we think of the £281 million which we saved last year and remember that in the same year we spent over £2,300 million on what is called "fun and games," we realise that the figure of savings is pathetically small,


even ridiculously and absurdly small, compared with what could be done. I ask my hon. Friend whether there is any way of discovering where this money goes. If not, would he consider introducing some social survey in order that we may have that information?

It being Ten o'Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. R. Allan.]

Mr. Osborne: I should also like to remind my hon. Friend that of the £1,000 million put into investment savings year by year practically the whole lot is withdrawn, and that we are scarcely adding to our permanent savings at all. I am not discussing trustee savings and building society savings, I am dealing solely with the National Savings Movement. What is wanted is some inducement for the ordinary wage earner and salary earner to invest permanently against his old age.
I have given the figures of the increase in wages over the last eight years. Salaries since 1946 have gone up from £1,625 million to £2,900 million, an increase of £1,275 million per annum. We are not tapping either the extra salaries or the extra wages as we should do. I suggest that there are two reasons why we are not saving as much as we ought to.
I do not think that my hon. Friend or the Government can do anything about the first reason, why we are not, as a nation, saving as much as we should, which is because personal saving in a Welfare State becomes more and more difficult. If the social services are to cover every contingency from the cradle to the grave there is not the urge to put a bit away for a rainy day, as I was taught to do when I was a boy. If both sides of the House agree that a rainy day will never come again, and that the State will look after us should a rainy day come by accident, it is obvious that there is no inducement to save.
It seems that under the Welfare State and the social services which we now enjoy, we look after the thriftless more than the thrifty, and it is need rather than merit that gets consideration. Therefore, where we have guaranteed State help, the desire for personal help must be

weakened. Under these conditions the Savings Movement is fighting a hard, difficult and almost losing battle. About that I think the Government can do very little.
The second reason we are not saving is one which my hon. Friend and the Government could and ought to do something about. The reason is that people believe more and more that it is not worth while saving because of the continuous reduction in the value of money. Inflation is the greatest enemy of saving. I know that all parties in the Western world have made up their minds never again to tolerate mass unemployment. The bitterness of the '30s and '20s have eaten into our hearts and we are determined that, come what may, we shall never have mass unemployment again, and that if it is a choice between inflation and unemployment we will choose inflation.
The hon. Member for Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins), in one of the essays which he wrote in the "New Fabian Essays," set out very clearly that so far as he was concerned we would never again have unemployment, and that if the cure for unemployment was continuous, considerable inflation he was prepared to accept it. Last year, I had this point put to me in a rather amusing way by one of the leading American business men in Boston, Massachusetts. I accused him of selling American bonds, knowing full well that they would not be paid back at the proper value at which they had been sold. He said, "In America"—and I suppose it is true over here—"everybody likes that swollen feeling."
He put it in these terms. He said they liked to be permanently "slightly pregnant." The trade unions wanted slightly higher wages, the business men wanted slightly bigger profits, the shareholders wanted slightly bigger dividends and the tax gatherer, as represented here by my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, wanted bigger taxes, despite the fact that the real wealth of the community might be the same.
Under those conditions inflation is inevitable and people naturally say, "We will not save. We will not go without. We will not forgo present pleasures in order to be paid back at about 16s. in the £." I raised this matter some years ago when I asked the right


hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell), who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, a Question on 24th October, 1950. It was Question No. 56, and I got a written reply. I asked the Chancellor:
… what is today's nominal value, including accrued interest, of a National Savings Certificate, purchased in August, 1945, for 15s.; and what is its real purchasing power allowing for the subsequent drop in the internal purchasing power of the pound.
The reply said:
A Savings Certificate bought for 15s. in August, 1945. is now worth 17s. 7d.…
That is, 2s. 7d. had been accrued by way of interest—
and would now have a purchasing power in terms of 1945 prices …
That is when the certificate was purchased—
of about 14s. 2d."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th October, 1950: Vol. 478. c. 320.]
Therefore, the man who had been thrifty, the best type of citizen who had denied himself the pleasure of spending, not only lost all the interest which had accrued on this 15s. but he had also lost 10d. of the original capital. It is unreasonable to expect men to save in such conditions. After five years, having lent the State the money, the purchaser was worse off.
It is against that background that I make my plea that the Government should do something to safeguard the wage earner saver against inflation. It is not only the little investor who needs a safeguard. Everybody is asking for it. The big investors can look after themselves. They can buy equities, land or property and hedge against inflation.
I read the other day that the Church Commissioners, very wisely I think although a bit late in the day, have sold most of their gilt-edged securities and bought equities and done extremely well out of them. I hope that some of the poor persons will get a rise in salary as a result of the profits being made on the Stock Exchange. I read that the old age pensioners are to demand that their pensions should be tied in some way to the cost of living and that their pensions should have a stable, real value.
There are millions of wage earners who have their wages tied to the cost of living. If it can be done for these sections of the community, I beg my hon.

Friend and the Treasury generally to see if some scheme can be evolved that would give to the wage earner, the little capitalist, the man whom I want to encourage to have a share in the country and in its prosperity, some safeguard against inflation.
I want to make a practical suggestion to my hon. Friend. I know that he will say that it is difficult and that he cannot give me a promise now. All I ask him to do is to go back to his officials and to think about it. I suggest that the first £500 put into National Savings Certificates should have their repayment value tied to the cost of living or to some calculation of real value as at the time the money is paid in.
I believe that the National Savings Movement would get a great deal more money, even if there were no interest at all on the certificates, if the capital could be guaranteed against inflation. That is a practical step that could be taken. I know it cannot be done tonight, but I am not asking for legislation——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): To my mind, the point is whether the hon. Member is asking for legislation, which seemed to me to be the case. If he is, that will not be in order on the Adjournment.

Mr. Osborne: I am suggesting that my hon. Friend should go home and think about it. Whether he thinks it would be possible to legislate on these lines, or not, would be a matter for him.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If this does involve legislation—I do not know whether it does or not—the hon. Member cannot pursue it.

Mr. Osborne: I do not think this would need legislation. It could be done by the Treasury without requiring the consent of the House. This morning I went to the National Savings headquarters, and that was the idea they gave to me.
I made further inquiries to see if this idea had been tried in other parts of the world. Two instances were given to me. I was told that in France, in 1952, they had a scheme for saving for house building accounts and the Government guaranteed that, if building costs were higher when the money was drawn out, then the capital that had been lost through inflation would be replaced, provided, of


course, that the capital was not drawn out until the building had been put up. I was advised that no interest was paid on the loan. That is one suggestion I would leave with my hon. Friend.
What is even more interesting is that in the same year, in Sweden, the Central Organisation of Co-operative Associations issued a 3 per cent. 20-year loan, the repayment, of course, being at par in 1972. The attraction of that loan was that up to 50 per cent. of the loan would be guaranteed against inflation. Could not something along those lines be done for the National Savings Movement? If it could, I believe there would be no difficulty in getting the extra 2 million savers and a lot of the additional £2,500 million paid in wages today as compared with 1946. In addition, we should be encouraging people to save a little on their own against old age and its difficulties.
I have reminded my hon. Friend that I asked the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell) a Question on this point. I also tackled his predecessor, the fate Sir Stafford Cripps, when, on 18th July, 1950, I put a Question to him asking if he would
… produce a scheme whereby payment of the first £500 invested in National Saving Certificates shall be based on the cost-of-living index so as to safeguard small investors against loss of real capital through depreciation of the £ sterling …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th July, 1950; Vol. 477, c. 2034.]
I asked him that, because the previous day I asked how much the value of the £ had fallen in the preceding five years. I was told it had dropped from 20s. to 16s. It seemed to me a great scandal that the British Government was prepared to encourage this country's working men to put their money into savings certificates, to save their money, knowing full well that, within five years, the investors would have lost 20 per cent, of their capital. It is not good enough. The little man cannot protect himself against inflation.
Since we are all agreed that a continuous and gradual inflation is inevitable—because we shall never have deflation again as it would bring unemployment and we will not face that—I ask that my suggestion shall be considered. If some scheme could be brought forward, I am convinced that the National Savings Movement could attract those 2 million extra people who are wanted, and the country would benefit immensely.

Mr. H. Rhodes: I am sure that the hon. Member does not wish to discourage anyone in the Savings Movement, but he did infer that there was not very much incentive at the moment to save. I think it would be a mistake if what he has said discouraged people from saving in the local savings groups. Will the hon. Member like to correct that impression?

Mr. Osborne: If I may be allowed to do so, I should certainly like to correct it, for the last thing I wish to go out from this House is any form of discouragement to savers. I said that half a million voluntary workers were engaged in this work and I want to encourage them. That is why I am asking for this extra protection, because it would be a very fine thing if we could have these extra savers and if we could help those whom the Chairman of the Savings Movement this morning described as the very salt of the earth.

10.16 p.m.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. R. Maudling): My hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) has raised a subject of very great importance and made a most interesting suggestion, which he has submitted once or twice before, but which he has made in rather more detail this evening. I am sure we are all glad to have an opportunity to do anything we can to assist the National Savings Movement. I was interested in the remarks of the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes) as well as those of my hon. Friend.
Surely the National Savings Movement is one of the remarkable features of the social scene of this country, one of those voluntary movements that started in wartime. It is one of the strange things started in wartime as a temporary movement and became a permanent feature of our land. Other examples come to mind, such as different forms of taxation and forms of licensing regulations which, started in wartime, continue rather to our regret in peacetime. But the National Savings Movement was a movement started under all the difficulties, and also under all the inspirations, of war, and in which these devoted workers engage. So the movement has been carried on in peacetime conditions which invariably are more difficult than wartime, when there is the


patriotic urge, the shortage of goods on which to spend money, and so on, all of which make it easier in wartime to encourage people to save than in peacetime.
It is quite an extraordinary achievement that this movement, starting in 1916, has now about 8 million in savings groups and over £6,000 million has been invested by the people of this country through it. I think something over 60 per cent. of the adult population of this country now hold some form of National Savings. Undoubtedly that could not take place without a tremendous amount of voluntary work put in by a number of people in the movement from the leaders down to the voluntary worker in the street groups, in the industrial group or in the schools. I know that everyone in this House would be glad to have the opportunity once again of paying tribute to the work that they have done.
I am particularly glad that my hon. Friend mentioned the industrial groups, because he is quite right in saying that they contribute the predominate part of the savings saved by organised groups within the National Savings Movement. I think they have done a magnificent job in recent years, and I should like on behalf of the Government to thank the employers in particular and everyone else concerned in the support that these industrial groups have given to the National Savings Movement.
My hon. Friend quoted the figure of 35 per cent., which is the percentage of members in the larger industrial units in the country who are members of savings groups. I understand their savings are at the rate of 9s. 6d. per member per week. Altogether of employed in the country 16 per cent. are members of the savings groups. That, I think, is a considerable achievement, but I am sure that more could be done. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor will be grateful to my hon. Friend for the support he has given to the effort to persuade employers to do even more to develop these industrial savings groups.
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has recently written a letter on this subject to the President of the British Employers' Federation. I understand that some 15,000 copies of it are being distributed through employers' organisations

to individual employers. I am sure that they will play a large part in this big new drive for 2 million additional savers.
Regarding what was said by my hon. Friend about the retirement savings scheme and the assisted savings scheme within industrial groups, which we are hoping to see substantially developed, in both cases these are schemes whereby an employer can contribute to a savings scheme embracing his employees and in which the employer's contribution will be treated as a trading expense, but not as remuneration in the hands of the employee or of the trust operating the scheme on behalf of the employee.
I think that the retirement savings scheme will be of particular interest to the small industrial concerns, about which my hon. Friend spoke, where the normal pension scheme is not practicable, and where a scheme like this can be of great benefit. In companies where there are pension schemes, I think that the assistance savings scheme should be of considerable interest, particularly where a large number of young women are employed, because to assist them to save for marriage and to take up family life on leaving industry is a very good idea and one which is developing, and which could be further developed at the present moment.
My hon. Friend also referred to the increase in wages in recent years in relation to the increase in savings. I think it is true to say that, if we relate the increase in savings to the increase in wages, it is a fairly small percentage. I have no accurate statistics on the point raised by my hon. Friend about how much men give their wives and how much they retain for themselves. That is rather a ticklish point on which there are no statistics. What I think is undoubtedly true, however, is that the total volume of savings has been increasing in a marked manner during the last few years. It probably started with the very big development in insurance premiums. The National Savings Movement is now showing a similar rise, and recent figures show a most encouraging increase in the rate of the accumulation of savings through the National Savings Movement.
I now turn to the point made by my hon. Friend about tying a certain proportion of National Savings to the cost-of-living index. I have no doubt that,


certainly in recent years, though I must not be controversial about this, any security not tied to the cost-of-living index must have decreased in value. But that is an historical fact. I think that there are considerable difficulties in accepting my hon. Friend's suggestion. Quite clearly, we could not tie all Government securities to a cost-of-living index. If we wanted to bring inflation into economy, that would be the best way to do it.
If it is possible to single out one form of Government obligation from all the others, why not as well as National Savings Certificates, Defence Bonds and deposits in trustee savings banks, because people who have put their savings into those forms of savings have suffered equally from the rise in the cost of living as people who have invested their money in savings certificates?
Again, it is always difficult to discern whether we are talking about small savers or small savings, because everyone is entitled to put a certain amount into Savings Certificates or into Defence Bonds, and they have recently been increased. Therefore, it is not always true to say that people who hold National Savings Certificates are small savers, though essentially the Savings Certificate is the medium of saving for small savers.
Of course, we have already gone a good way towards making National Savings Certificates a very attractive form of investment. If we carry out the necessary calculations, we find that the net return on Savings Certificates is a very generous one, and, of course, it is a return free of tax. To that extent, it already has peculiar attractions as a form of investment.
There are difficulties in singling out one particular Government obligation and applying to that obligation a principle which, in practice, it will be quite impossible to apply to all Government obligations. I know that my hon. Friend has quoted the examples of France and Sweden in 1952, but I would not say that we had sufficient experience and information of either of those schemes to regard them necessarily as excellent examples for us to follow.
What would be the effect in practice of tying the cost of living to the nominal

value of the first £500 of Savings Certificates? One could not make it a one-way option. I differ from my hon. Friend, because I can conceive circumstances when prices might fall. If I may say so, he was rather gloomy on this matter. I agree that the trend over a long period is almost certainly in an upward direction, but although the value of money may fall by a small fraction annually, I cannot accept his thesis that never again shall we see a period of falling prices.
If we give people the benefit of saying that if prices have gone up the nominal value of the security can be raised, we must also say that if prices fall and the value of money is increased, then the nominal value of the security should fall. A one-way option would be difficult to justify. On the other hand, a scheme of this kind operating in a downward as well as an upward direction would be of a far less attractive character.
It is difficult for any Government to accept the assumption that prices will always continue to rise and the value of money will always continue to fall. It may be possible for economists or business men or experts of various kinds to say so, but for a Government to say, "We accept and we act on the principle that the value of our money will continue to decline" would surely have a considerable effect on the confidence of the rest of the world in that particular currency. Whether one is dealing with social service benefits, Government securities, or anything else, if we start as a Government, on the assumption that the value of money will continue to decline we undermine the value of that money to a considerable extent. That is why I find it difficult in principle to accept the assumption that money will continue to fall, and therefore that the nominal value of securities should be guaranteed.

Mr. Osborne: I am not asking the Government to assume that money will fall in value, but I am saying that in case it falls in value we should protect the little man who has made small savings. If the value of money does not fall, the guarantee is not necessary.

Mr. Maudling: I though that my hon. Friend's argument was based on the assumption that inflation would continue indefinitely. That is certainly what I thought him to say. If he does not think


that, then, on his thesis, one is asking people to accept securities which may become of more or less value as prices fall or rise.
We will examine very carefully and closely any suggestion which is likely to assist in encouraging national savings, particularly those advanced by my hon. Friend, who has taken a very great interest in this matter for many years. The National Savings Movement is quite essential to maintaining our industrial strength and, even more important, to maintaining the position of the United Kingdom as the main source of industrial capital for the development of the whole resources of the Commonwealth. If we do not have adequate savings in this country we cannot provide capital abroad. They are the same thing. If you and I, Mr. Speaker, save money that is our savings. If other people save money it is their capital. If we are to have industrial

investment in this country and are to develop the resources of the Commonwealth we must have savings. Without the National Savings Movement and its activities we cannot hope to have the volume of savings which the country requires.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this matter tonight and for his continuing interest in the savings movement. We shall examine the suggestions which he has made though, for the reasons that I have given, I cannot give any optimistic forecast of the result of that examination. The more the National Savings Movement succeeds in its own objective, then inevitably the more we can look forward ourselves to the stable value of our currency in the years ahead.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-nine Minutes past Ten o'Clock.